TheEEStory.com

I think that Y_Po's and your problem is that you are using "stationary" as a definition of trajectory instead of part of a proper noun used for a real device.

The usage here is adjectival.

[quote=ee-tom][quote]
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.
[/quote]
Yes

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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.[quote=ee-tom]

The IBLC and the mixing formula are orthogonal issues. Let's assume there is no IBLC and the CMBT polarizes through the intrinsic paraelectric polarization. The problem of the effective K remains. Because the K of the CMBT is much higher than that of alumina, it will polarize much more than alumina, which means that the field will still concentrate in the alumina layers and the effective K should still be 500, yet the measurements show the effective K at 20000. This means that the field does not concentrate in the alumina layers. Is there an explanation for this?

Perhaps, but it is in common use in the English language. Seeing as the entire Universe is moving, nothing is actually stationary, so anything called stationary would not be correctly labeled.

Regardless, you made an analogy yourself and missed a possibility of how you could be wrong. I really don't know why he didn't just use "space station".

And, not that it matters, but:

"Satellites in the Clarke Belt are said to be stationary, geostationary, synchronous or geosynchronous."

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

So, whether they are stationary or not, "they are said" to be.

e'er wrote:

I think that Y_Po's and your problem is that you are using "stationary" as a definition of trajectory instead of part of a proper noun used for a real device.

I'm reminded of the period when engineers couldn't figure out how bees could fly. According to engineering analysis, they couldn't. Yet, the bees stubbornly ignored the engineering analysis, and continued flying merrily along.

It was eventually discovered that the bees' wings flex during each wingbeat, but the engineers had treated the wings as rigid objects. Note there was no new science involved in re-analyzing the bees' flight based on flexible wings. Just a shift in perspective.

It may turn out to be so with the EESU; it may be, as Richard Weir has been saying, that there's no new science involved. It may merely be that the SMEs are going to have to throw away one or more of their "rigid" assumptions in favor of one more "flexible".

Last edited Tue, 02 Jun 2009, 2:28pm by Lensman

But, there are devices called "stationary satellites". Enough with the red herring. EE-Tom made a very simple analogy about the impossible and was proven wrong. IMO, that bodes well for me and my investment in Zenn. If he can be wrong about something as simple as an apple, then he can definitely be wrong about some very advanced science that he doesn't even have all the information about.

Lensman wrote:

I'm reminded of the period when engineers couldn't figure out how bees could fly. According to engineering analysis, they couldn't. Yet, the bees stubbornly ignored the engineering analysis, and continued flying merrily along.

It was eventually discovered that the bees' wings flex during each wingbeat, but the engineers had treated the wings as rigid objects. Note there was no new science involved in re-analyzing the bees' flight based on flexible wings. Just a shift in perspective.

It may turn out to be so with the EESU; it may be, as Richard Weir has been saying, that there's no new science involved. It may merely be that the SMEs are going to have to throw away one or more of their "rigid" assumptions in favor of one more "flexible".

e'er wrote:

But, there are devices called "stationary satellites". Enough with the red herring. EE-Tom made a very simple analogy about the impossible and was proven wrong. IMO, that bodes well for me and my investment in Zenn. If he can be wrong about something as simple as an apple, then he can definitely be wrong about some very advanced science that he doesn't even have all the information about.

Dude, just because it's a misnomer doesn't mean the device doesn't exist. There are things traveling around the Earth that are commonly referred to as stationary satellites. They may have been misnamed, but they're still out there.

I guess from what you are saying I can't eat devils food cake, but you can eat crabapples. ;)

Regardless of the fact that there's no such thing as a "truly stationary" object, objects can be stationary with respect to one or more other objects. If instead of saying merely "stationary", we say "stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth", I think we'll then see this is merely a semantic argument, and not a substantive one. A geostationary satellite is (relatively) stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth.

Lensman wrote:

Regardless of the fact that there's no such thing as a "truly stationary" object, objects can be stationary with respect to one or more other objects. If instead of saying merely "stationary", we say "stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth", I think we'll then see this is merely a semantic argument, and not a substantive one. A geostationary satellite is (relatively) stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth.

I think he wants to hear geosynchronous, but refuses to say so.

Y Po. thanks for the opening. You believed bees could fly even tho known science said they couldn't because you could see bees flying. With the eesu your known science says it can't be and because you haven't seen one "FLY" you say it is impossible. Guess if you hadn't seen a bee, you would never have believed they fly.

...And EE_Tom doesn't believe that apples will float in outer space. ;)

I begin to have sympathy with Y_Po. He & I are making the same points. I bother to explain them and get ignored just the same!

satellites have d2x/dt2 non-zero - and therefore are not 'stationary' in any Euclidean reference frame. This definition works regardless of relative velocity.

Does the moon float?

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).

Yes - but we are assuming k ~ 300 or so (to get the max possible polarization at 350V/u) so the extra +1 is negligible.

ee-tom wrote:

I begin to have sympathy with Y_Po. He & I are making the same points. I bother to explain them and get ignored just the same!

satellites have d2x/dt2 non-zero - and therefore are not 'stationary' in any Euclidean reference frame. This definition works regardless of relative velocity.

That's fine. I have sympathy for both of you. You spent all of that time addressing one misnomer just to avoid responding to your messed up analogy. No need to now. I already have confirmation that you aren't a HAL9000 and can in fact have a miscalculation. As far as EESU's go, I now feel there is a much stronger possibility that there is something there that you aren't thinking about.

There are millions of things I am not thinking about!

Tom, I hope you know that my previous post was a compliment. If anyone almost convinced me to sell my shares of Zenn in the past it was you. Although, you occasionally mention the possibility of it working, you usually tend to have an almost certain belief that it will never work as specified. As an investor, it's just nice to see that you missed something obvious as you often seem to lead the scientific discussions and rarely get refuted.

It was shown much earlier on this site that the amount of energy storage claimed by eestor would NOT rip BT apart, and breakdown voltage is not exceeded. So, it is theoretically possible to store the required energy in BT. The mechanism has not been demonstrated.

ee-tom wrote:

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.

The possible flaw - "Fundamentally, BaTiO3 can only achieve high polarization through movement of Ti ions in lattice."

Is it not true that the introduction of polarons, etc., obviate this fundamental assumption?

fundamental flaw is calculating energy based only on separation of ti and electrons. this paper declares that other intra-molecular forces resisting ti movement are significantly higher contributor.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3DOUZfRmJLYC&a...,M1

larry, any particular chapter / section / page(s)?

Seems soooo obvious.
If EEStor did it, classical stuff misses / doesn't include "something".
The "secret sauce" that so many SMEs have missed.
For so long.

nekote wrote:

larry, any particular chapter / section / page(s)?

Seems soooo obvious.
If EEStor did it, classical stuff misses / doesn't include "something".
The "secret sauce" that so many SMEs have missed.
For so long.

try chapter 9

ee-tom wrote:

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.

In reviewing the Lorentz Correction in barium Titanate in noted this jem " Thus if we ask for the action of the Ti ions on the those oxygens which lie along the same line parallel to the polarization (or z axis), which we have previously called ozgens of type a, we find the Lorentz coorection is really (30.080+4 pi/3)P, or approximately 8.2 time the ordinary value of 4 piP/3. The action of the oxygens of type a on the Ti ions contains the greatly enhanced Lorentz factor." extract from The Lorentz Correction in Barium Titanate J.C. Slater 13 march 1950 page 73 in Ferro electricity: The fundamentals collection by Julio A. Gonzalo, Basílio Jiménez - 2005 - Technology & Engineering - 185 pages

Basically spherical symmetry cannot be assumed when BiTiO3 is polarized. So the EE-Tom calculations need review.

Tester wrote:

In reviewing the Lorentz Correction in barium Titanate in noted this jem " Thus if we ask for the action of the Ti ions on the those oxygens which lie along the same line parallel to the polarization (or z axis), which we have previously called ozgens of type a, we find the Lorentz coorection is really (30.080+4 pi/3)P, or approximately 8.2 time the ordinary value of 4 piP/3. The action of the oxygens of type a on the Ti ions contains the greatly enhanced Lorentz factor." extract from The Lorentz Correction in Barium Titanate J.C. Slater 13 march 1950 page 73 in Ferro electricity: The fundamentals collection by Julio A. Gonzalo, Basílio Jiménez - 2005 - Technology & Engineering - 185 pages

Basically spherical symmetry cannot be assumed when BiTiO3 is polarized. So the EE-Tom calculations need review.

How does the Lorentz Correction relate? I believe that this is an observational technique - not a change in the lattice itself. Basically, BaTiO3 does weird things to x-rays. Doesn't change the actual lattice, and spherical symmetry was never assumed. Otherwise, how could the Ti ion go to the corner?!