Y_Po wrote:After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.
After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.
What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.
You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.
B - you are talking rubbish here. I remember the original science discussions. All Y_Po's comments about ED were given volume dielectric, E = 350V/u. Higher field gives higher possible ED. And there are other ways to make capacitors (DL etc) which do not have such obvious fundamental limits. Indeed graphene-based DL supercaps can manage ED in Li ion range, though when you add in packaging etc it does not look quite so impressive.
It's only rubbish to someone like you who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Y_Pogo wrote:It is really pretty simple
In ferroelectrics you have electric dipoles which can be polarized quite easily by external electric field. That is where energy effectively stored.
The problem is amount of dipoles is fixed, once you ramp up external voltage all dipoles get polarized and no more left. Your high-k material effectively became low k-material, end of EEstory :)
Upper limit on polarization cell is a ion charge multiplied by distance ion allowed to travel.
You can do math yourself.
There are two separate problems:
1. voltage breakdown
2. k-problem (dielectric saturation)
They presumably solved first one and completely ignored/was not aware of the second one
The easy way is treat it as a capacitor:
calculate maximum polarization (or surface charge)
Then use it to calculate saturation voltage using permittivity.
After that use standard 1/2*C*V^2
I told you your model is easy way to confuse yourself
Just treat it as a capacitor, it is way easier.
I would like to point out that
obsession with large k is stupid
In reality to maximize energy density one would like to keep break-down voltage roughly equal to the saturation voltage which means the higher the break-down voltage the lower k one should use.
Of course to do that one had to be aware of the saturation on the first place :)
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.
Assuming they did in fact made a measurement, I think they made a mistake during measurement.
I think what happened is that their sample was not k=20,000
but something much less than that.
In that case there will be no dependence and since most likely they assumed k=20000 and looked at the relative change of k they got what they got.
The reason why I think thet had k<<20,000 is the fact they use mix of BT with some other much lower k dielectric.
The reason why we can safely exclude possibility of breakthrough is simple - no voltage dependence of k were observed. If it were the real breakthrough there would be some dependence. It is highly unlikely that a known nonlinear material mixed with something else becomes absolutely linear. These idiots simply forgot to turn the voltage on. (or as I said before their k was much lower than 20000). Result fabrication is also possible. There is no possibility of breakthrough.
You are so slow that it is not even funny. Everybody have already agreed that their patents can not have any relation to the presumed "discovery". The problem with yours and others theories is that EEstor patent don't mention word "saturation", that fact immediately suggests their utter ignorance. Your theories have to incorporate this fact somehow. What would be the point in creating impression of being ignorant? How does it help anything?
EEtom, this is Y_po's original position. It shows he assumed EEStor's solution was a ferroelectric simple dipole system. It is not. That's why he got so mad at me when I told him Penn State said it was not a simple dipole system and that they were interested in other mechanisms that could achieve the energy density in question ala recapping. Y_Po, remember getting so angry about that? Why did you get so angry?
Notice how he assumed permittivity was not measured. It was measured and reported via 3rd party. That's why Y_Po left the site for a couple weeks. He had to reconstitute new bullshit which everyone agrees he achieved.
Y_Po was so sure EEStor was proposing a simple dipole system. Later it was revealed it was paraelectric not ferroelectric. Additionally, saturation--although possible in any formulation--is not the key problem real experts focus on. It is breakdown.
Basically, Y_Po was an idiot because he doesn't know how to read patents despite attending a decent US school to receive his PHD. He thinks patents are scientific articles where entrepreneurs tell the world how to find buried treasure so they can easily go dig it up, make their own capacitors and start their own companies.
Now, you've stated with enormous confidence that you knew exactly what Y_Po originally proposed. I don't think we can trust your confidence any more. Do you?
The level of permittivity reported by 3rd parties and in further patents suggest EEStor's is a barrier layer/core shell device of some sort. This matches what recapping is doing as well with the core-shell terminology they use in their patents. As far as I can tell, they are both pursuing exactly the same technology unless you want to believe that there were two hitherto unknown mechanisms waiting to be discovered that are distinct but somehow able to achieve the same end. With recapping's, we know from ARPA they had to provide actual data and convince multiple SME's they could build a prototype with ED above lithium ion as specified in the funding requirements. Dielectric saturation in a simple dipole system as Y_Po originally argued against is a phantom. I expect we'll be seeing more phantoms as fast as you guys can create them.
I dont claim to understand the science but I know inconsistency and changing one's story when I see it.
The real problem is breakdown and always has been. EEStor solved that problem by manufacturing capacitors the way integrated circuits are manufactured. They have applied 60 year old chemistry techniques to problems that have plagued capacitors for numerous years. That is why they can claim no new science. I also think Stanford's approach of using electrons rather than ions is related.
What ties all 3 together is the inapplicability of the concepts of a battery and a capacitor. All 3 are attempting to exploit mechanisms which do not fit neatly into those well understood phenomena.
These people are scientists and some think they have a tiger by the tail..meaning they have at a minimum interesting measurements. Guess what? It's more than interesting measurements.