TheEEStory.com

This thread is summarising previous material, with corrections. PLEASE check these calculations! the answer now is in line with Y_Po's estimates a long time ago.

The argument is that there is no way that BaTiO3 can sustain enough polarisation to have eestor claimed ED at 350V/um.

This means that the measured low voltage permittivity must saturate before 350V/um (always assuming vthe dielectric does not break down.

Background. Everyone else measures saturation for paraelectric BaTiO3 MUCH smaller than required for eestor ED. It is published in various papers. But we can ignore this - eestor might have found some way round it.

Fundamentally, BaTiO3 can only achieve high polarization through movement of Ti ions in lattice. The effect of this is easily calculable:

Assume:
qe=Electron charge = 1.6E-19 (SI units)
lattice is 4A =0.4nm = 4E-8cm
Ti ion dynamic charge is +7.5qe.
We get volumetric Ti ion density from
Avogadro's constant * density BatiO3 / molecular no baTiO3 =
6*10E23*6/233 = 1.5*10E22 Ti ions/cc

To verify this we expect one Ti ion per (0.4nm)^3 =
1/(4E-8)^3/cc = 10E24/64= 1.5E22 Ti ions/cc

The max dipole moment per Ti we calculate as:
qe*7.5*0.4*E-9*theta. (SI units) where theta is the fraction of the lattice the Ti ion moves. If the Ti ion moves towards one corner of the lattice cell we have theta=1.5 for translational symmetry. Let us therefore assume theta=0.75 for max dipole moment. Still too large, but it will do. This is equivalent to 3A movement.

qe=1.6*E-19.

So:
P0 = 1.6E-19*0.75*7.5*4E-10 =9E-29 (SI units)

The polarization density P is:
P = 9E-29*1.5E22 (in units of polarization/cc where polarization is SI)
= 1.4E-6

So at 350V/u we have ED (/cc) is
ED = (1/2)E.P = 0.5*3.5E8*1.4E-6= 250J/cc

This is looking more plausible than the previous max value, and comes in a comfortable 1/10 of eestor claimed ED. I think it is compatible with Y_Po's calculation from a long time ago? To get eestor ED you need 75 electrons to move 3/4 of the lattice.

Perhaps somone could check these calculations!

The "assumptions" -
dynamic charge on Ti = +7.5e
lattice constant = 4A
distance moved = 1/2 of lattice (diagonally). Diagonal is 6A, so max movement is 3A

Bottom Line: Max Energy Density is 250J/cc

On other threads we have shown that the max energy density due to Al2O3 etc is also low.

All the other ideas (thin films, etc) don't work because of the high k which eestor measure, this means that IF it comes from low-k intrinsic dielectric this must be using a big IBLC amplification factor and therefore the volumetric density of the dielectric layer must be low.

There is no way round this.

Best wishes, Tom

Tom,

Thanks for this and all your other posts. As someone who is not particularly knowledgeable in this field, I really appreciate the information and explanation you provide. Plenty of folks are willing to say "it can't be done" -- I much prefer that statement being supported with the math. :-)

Ultimately, though, the proposition you are demonstrating is this: "What DW claims is impossible based on what is currently known." There is a simpler proof of this proposition, which does not require any math at all:

Theorem: What is claimed for the EESU is impossible based on current understanding.

Proof: I can't buy one anywhere.

I love the explanations you are providing, but the conclusion is something that was already quite evident. If DW has anything even close to what he is claiming, it goes without saying he's discovered something new.

I ask the following question because I would find your thoughts on it interesting. Suppose that you were presented with a working EESU, and you performed whatever tests you like on it and determined that it does indeed live up to claimed specs. (I know you are quite sure this would never happen, but hypothetically considering the impossible is sometimes worthwhile, or at least fun.) What would be your best guess as to how to explain it?

In posing this thought experiment, I stipulate that the forests are well-enough trodden that if Bigfoot exists someone would probably have stumbled over him by now, and for this and many other reasons the rational scientific position is that there is no Bigfoot. But surely there are some hollows and caves where a sasquatch or two might be holed up.

In the highly unlikely event that Bigfoot exists, where could he possibly be hiding?

ee-tom,
I'm assuming your numbers are correct, and apply thru "known" science to limit ED. So mathematically, how could the ED be multiplied by 10?

increase the number of dipoles by 10
increase the length of the dipoles by 10
increase the force necessary to stretch the dipole by 10.

It seems that Eestor needs to do one of these for the eesu to work in a classical way.

ee-tom wrote:

The argument is that there is no way that BaTiO3 can sustain enough polarisation to have eestor claimed ED at 350V/um.

Thanks Tom,

Bear with me for asking a question which you may have already addressed. As I understand them, your calculations are based exclusively on polarization. Do they also account for the possibility of charge in the dielectric, via mechanisms such as charge trapping?

EEnigma posted a V-k table a post #3 in
http://www.theeestory.com/topics/2035#

I made a graph with all ten komponents:
http://www.theeestory.com/files/voltage-to-k_gr...

To mee it's interesting to see two things, the curves seems to decrease slower than linear, and
they cross.
I don't know, but the way they cross indicate actual measurement more than numbercrunching to me.
One thing I din't like though is that the average deviation is falling with increasing voltage..
Then again, what do I know...

But B said it does work!?
:)

Thanks again ee_tom for your analysis. I'm also wondering if anyone has any information on BaTiO3 polarization durability itself. How long does it take for polarization to wear off- especially under high voltage?

Trapped charge -

Irrelevant because the stored energy is still limited by the dielectric. Unless charge is trapped in the lattice (so that above one cell volume all is neutral) the limitations of the dielectric determine energy stored.

How could an EESU be designed to work?

Use lots of v thin films of some good insulator- say one or two molecules thick. The permittivity (of the film) would be low. the packing density of the films would be high - so that the electrodes are metallisation one ot two atoms thick.

Something new -

fine but as I have said many times this is new laws of physics not new technology therefore less likely by a long way.

Figures -

Please somone check them - these numbers are different from the ones we had before?

Yes, thin films is the only way one can get high energy density for conventional capacitor. I said that when? last year I think.

And of course double layer ultra-caps, which already have reported density nearing existing lithium. I guess Rud is right after all :)

I am trying to imagine B's face while driving nanocarbon's battery :)

Last edited Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 10:55am by Y_Po

The volume of CMBT is 17,716cc (this is from the patent). So the ED needed is 10,600J/cc not 2500J/cc.

Seakell wrote:

EEnigma posted a V-k table a post #3 in
http://www.theeestory.com/topics/2035#

I made a graph with all ten komponents:
http://www.theeestory.com/files/voltage-to-k_gr...

To mee it's interesting to see two things, the curves seems to decrease slower than linear, and
they cross.
I don't know, but the way they cross indicate actual measurement more than numbercrunching to me.
One thing I din't like though is that the average deviation is falling with increasing voltage..
Then again, what do I know...

To supply deviation numbers to your graph, see: http://theeestory.com/posts/32277

As you state, the standard deviations decrease as the voltage increases. I thought this odd at first. I was only looking at using statistical analysis as a way of proving or disproving whether the data in the Eestor patent were fabricated or not. I came to the conclusion that the data were not fabricated because the standard deviations ran counter to what is intuitive (at least to me - and also nanocarbons who opined on this in another thread). Should someone fabricate data, they would at least make up numbers that are intuitive.

Now that I consider the standard deviations a second time, it makes sense to me on a physical level. As you can see from your graph and my calculations, the standard deviations go down very slightly when the components are tested over increasing voltages. This could be due to a curing effect on the composition by applying increasing voltage. After all, the composition is a polymer. One would expect the measurements of the physical properties of a polymer (whatever those properties to be) to exhibit less deviation over the course of its curing.

Any analysis of the Eestor composition that does not consider the PET to be an integral part of that composition should be interpreted with a grain or two of salt (pun fully intended).

Last edited Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 12:09pm by DAP

danielapearson wrote:

Any analysis of the Eestor composition that does not consider the PET to be an integral part of that composition should be interpreted with a grain or two of salt (pun fully intended).

DP, the first patent relied on "glass" serving in the role of PET. Can you think of what properties are similar between "glass" and PET that might shed light on the mechanisms EEStor is relying on?

So, if you're right about this avenue being a dead end, as apparently ferroelectric polarization is, yet it did work, as advertised, there would *HAVE TO BE* some other effect(s) at work, right?

Just effects you're not currently considering.

Nekote - new physics - not new effect.

You could also ask -

"But if you saw an apple floating in the middle of a room in absence of electric & magnetic fileds, and with still air, and without physical support, it would have to be some new effect?"

How about divine intervention? That would be enough.

apple floating in room with air - on earth - NO

apple floating in room with air - at stationary satellite location - YES

same apple, same room, same air, no new physics - a known constant becomes a variable and is zeroed out.

Any chance any of the known constants in eestor's case have become variable due to the unique combination of engineered ingredients and processing methods in the eesu mix?

ee-tom wrote:

How about divine intervention? That would be enough.

Hollow apple, with helium inside. ;)

ee-tom:

The order of magnitude is about right, but you do have to add in the net electric field (i.e. the amount of energy stored if there was a vacuum between the plates).

Is there a link to Y_Po's old calculations?

Y_Po wrote:

Yes, thin films is the only way one can get high energy density for conventional capacitor. I said that when? last year I think.

And of course double layer ultra-caps, which already have reported density nearing existing lithium. I guess Rud is right after all :)

I am trying to imagine B's face while driving nanocarbon's battery :)

It would be a frown..... once I ran out of juice 5 blocks after I left my home.

ee-tom wrote:

Nekote - new physics - not new effect.

You could also ask -

"But if you saw an apple floating in the middle of a room in absence of electric & magnetic fileds, and with still air, and without physical support, it would have to be some new effect?"

How about divine intervention? That would be enough.

How about IBLC. Your objection against the IBLC is the fact that the field is concentrated in the alumina layers which means that the effective K of the composite is the K of the alumina (which is 10) amplified by the ratio between the thickness of the CMBT (1000 nm) and the thickness of the alumina (2 x 10 nm), which gives an effective K of 500. This is equivalent with saying that the series capacitance formula applies which gives us the same value of 500.

But we know that's not the case because the effective K is around 20,000, which means that EEStor's claim that the volumetric formula applies is not crack-pot science. The volumetric formula implies that the field distribution in the composite is a lot more uniform than people think. Why is it uniform? I have no idea but the question is equivalent with asking why doesn't the series capacitance formula apply? Does anybody know the answer to that?

Anyway, IBLC solves the saturation problem, and the volumetric formula through its implied uniform field solves the breakdown problem. The thing is that we have no idea about the mechanism behind the volumetric formula, we just know that it's valid based on measurements.

davidg wrote:

apple floating in room with air - on earth - NO

apple floating in room with air - at stationary satellite location - YES

same apple, same room, same air, no new physics - a known constant becomes a variable and is zeroed out.

Any chance any of the known constants in eestor's case have become variable due to the unique combination of engineered ingredients and processing methods in the eesu mix?

Wow David. Did you point out something that ee_tom didn't think about? Well, if he can miss something on such a simple analogy as HE created, then I have zero doubt that he could have easily missed something when evaluating the properties of an EESU.

There are no such things as stationary satellites.

How about IBLC. Your objection against the IBLC is the fact that the field is concentrated in the alumina layers which means that the effective K of the composite is the K of the alumina (which is 10) amplified by the ratio between the thickness of the CMBT (1000 nm) and the thickness of the alumina (2 x 10 nm), which gives an effective K of 500. This is equivalent with saying that the series capacitance formula applies which gives us the same value of 500.

But we know that's not the case because the effective K is around 20,000, which means that EEStor's claim that the volumetric formula applies is not crack-pot science.

This is wrong. We don't know, or even suspect, that eestor use IBLC. I believe Weir, they use paraelectric phase BaTiO3 which can have high k, and high k over broad temp range as measured. But of course they could be using other things as well, e.g. IBLC of various types. Or pixie dust. Since eestor have released almost no details of their dielectric (the patent is not necessarily what they now have) we cannot conclude much from it.

Anyway, IBLC solves the saturation problem, and the volumetric formula through its implied uniform field solves the breakdown problem.

IBLC works precisely by having a nonuniform field. The field is zero (or small) except in the gap, where it is amplification factor times higher than the apparent external field.

IBLC trades lower (external field) breakdown for higher k. It works by magnifying the field across the "gap". This can NEVER result in higher max energy density because this is determined by the dielectric as always. It does mean high energy can be stored for given (low) voltage.

Last edited Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 1:55pm by ee-tom

Y_Po wrote:

There are no such things as stationary satellites.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/S...

http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/eest...

This doesn't really show his calculations (and I'm not sure that he ever really did, judging from his "old and lazy" comment on pg 1), but, not coincidentally, Y_Po and eetom do arrive at the same number, though almost a year apart.

Any chance any of the known constants in eestor's case have become variable due to the unique combination of engineered ingredients and processing methods in the eesu mix?

No - since they are all fundamental constants of physics & chemistry

"Y_Po a long time ago" wrote:

Where did you get 5.7 A & 2 e from ?
I did exact calculation using these numbers myself
and for optimal k=~200 and break-down voltage of 500 V/micrometer I got 250 J/cc
Which is upper limit, you can't go higher than that, which is consistent with current record results for BT of only 10 J/cc. They claim 10,000 J/cc which is 40 times higher then calculated limit.

well I use:
3A (1/2 Y_Po)
7.5e (3.75 Y_Po)
350V (1/2 Y_Po since squared)

Different assumptions but (coincidentally) the differences cancel.

Thanks for that (slight) verification.

Tom

Last edited Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 2:01pm by ee-tom

eer wrote:

Y_Po wrote:
There are no such things as stationary satellites.

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/S...>

There are geostaionary (rotate stationary relative to earth's rotating reference frame)

There are Lunar Lagrangian - rotate stationary relative to earth-moon rotational frame of reference

There are solar Lagrangian - rotate stationary relative to earth/solar rotating FoR

None of these are stationary. All have non-constant velocity (since velocities are relative this is the only consistent interpretation of "stationary").

Tom

---

Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV²

(Only dummies assume this)