TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
How many believers are remaining? « Partnerships « Financial
 
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 9:32pm #91
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.
Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.

Now, go and pump your CN&Hippel crap as you did before.

Last edited Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 9:41pm by Y_Po


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline


Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:02pm #92
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 4570

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.
Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.

Now, go and pump your CN&Hippel crap as you did before.

You were right about traditional capacitors. You were wrong in assuming EEStor's was a traditional capacitor. What this means is you were right about something trivial and wrong about something substantive. However, you wish to portray yourself as being correct about something substantive. This is why you fail.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:05pm #93
eestorblog
Administrator
Christmas
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 4570

Don't worry, there are other areas of a fundamental scientific nature where you fail. These will be brought to light at the relevant time.

Of course, you could always make a contrite confession about your obvious analytical shortcomings. That would help you save face...appear more human. But you wont do that. You'll wait til a dumb guy like me with no scientific training educates you shamefully. It's your choice.


------------------
www.nyumbani.org

http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

I believe in miracles and UFO's.

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:06pm #94
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.
Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.

Now, go and pump your CN&Hippel crap as you did before.

You were right about traditional capacitors. You were wrong in assuming EEStor's was a traditional capacitor.


Oh, I forgot, EEStor has a magical capacitor, damn!
You are right.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:09pm #95
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

eestorblog wrote:

Don't worry, there are other areas of a fundamental scientific nature where you fail. These will be brought to light at the relevant time.

Of course, you could always make a contrite confession about your obvious analytical shortcomings. That would help you save face...appear more human. But you wont do that. You'll wait til a dumb guy like me with no scientific training educates you shamefully. It's your choice.

Right. What year is it? Why did you blank that FOIA email? And why don't I see you pumping CN von Hippel story? What happened to the ennd of 2009 EESU one of the weirs promised?


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:33pm #96
Daniel R Plante
EEcclesiastical
Troll_smoke
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 1185

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.

Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.


With a few very minor quibbles, I have to say that b is profoundly correct. EEStor's technique is not a simple dipole, it is a compound system that provides most of the polarization with one feature and most of the elasticity with a different non-linear feature. The result of the intimate coupling between these two features provides negative feedback that results in a high yet stabilized "effective permittivity" over a very large range of net electric field.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation with a thermostat, where the current through a bi-metallic strip vs the strip's bending angle is non-linear, yet the room's temperature is held very constant by the nature of these two coupled features reacting to the room's temperature, not the separate nature of each of the two individual components themselves.

The fact that b has some inkling of this picture with absolutely no relevant academic background whatsoever, while you profess expertise but have completely missed the mark due to an obviously narrow physics background and mountains of incorrect assumptions, is kind of amazing to me :)


daniel_r_plante@hotmail.com
Programmer, Applied Science Technologist (AScT). Automated Test Engineering (ATE), shop 153, CFB Esquimalt, Box 17000 Station Forces, Victoria, BC, Canada V9A 7N2. My direct line: (250) 363-2061. Home: (250) 382-0068

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:44pm #97
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.

Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.


With a few very minor quibbles, I have to say that b is profoundly correct. EEStor's technique is not a simple dipole, it is a compound system that provides most of the polarization with one feature and most of the elasticity with a different non-linear feature. The result of the intimate coupling between these two features provides negative feedback that results in a high yet stabilized "effective permittivity" over a very large range of net electric field.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation with a thermostat, where the current through a bi-metallic strip vs the strip's bending angle is non-linear, yet the room's temperature is held very constant by the nature of these two coupled features reacting to the room's temperature, not the separate nature of each of the two individual components themselves.

The fact that b has some inkling of this picture with absolutely no relevant academic background whatsoever, while you profess expertise but have completely missed the mark due to an obviously narrow physics background and mountains of incorrect assumptions, is kind of amazing to me :)


You are a degenerate too. There are no such thing as "simple dipole" Just because that piece of shit senile degenerate/liar Weir used that phrase does not mean it has right to exist. So stop running around with it.
Speaking of "profoundly correct"
Were you profoundly correct when you expressed your utter confidence in Zenn management? If so, go and express it again.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 10:49pm #98
Daniel R Plante
EEcclesiastical
Troll_smoke
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 1185

CapMan wrote:

ricinro wrote:

I suspect that EEStor will be making its money on production lines. The EESU will be a commodity. He benefits more from volume.

Which is a very good point.

But one thing that troubles me, is that model only workd if you can scale. In our wet chemistry, we'd go from liter flasks, to 500 liter tanks, to continuous pipeline reactors.

But DW seems to insist on having replicatable modules. How does that provide volume price reduction?



I believe Rich is correct (although I'm thinking there will be some room for profit from royalties of product as well).

CapMan, the constraints of parts-per-trillion purity requirements, coupled with the years-long and very expensive process of perfecting scale-up tech rather than simple ramp-up, pretty much dictate a line replication approach, at least for the first decade or so. We've already discussed this here in detail.

"Scale-up" R&D (if it's warranted or even possible under the multitude of technical constraints) can progress in tandem with initial line replication build out and the attendant revenue.


daniel_r_plante@hotmail.com
Programmer, Applied Science Technologist (AScT). Automated Test Engineering (ATE), shop 153, CFB Esquimalt, Box 17000 Station Forces, Victoria, BC, Canada V9A 7N2. My direct line: (250) 363-2061. Home: (250) 382-0068

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 11:06pm #99
Daniel R Plante
EEcclesiastical
Troll_smoke
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 1185

CapMan wrote:

ricinro wrote:

kimEE,

Will we all someday stand before the silver gates of EESUs creator and bow down on a sunday? (workdays are out if they got security)

Maybe not so much silver but all the aluminum they will have purchased in speculation, along with the barite mines.

; )



I'm thinking copper right now, although aluminum is a distinct possibility in the following years.


daniel_r_plante@hotmail.com
Programmer, Applied Science Technologist (AScT). Automated Test Engineering (ATE), shop 153, CFB Esquimalt, Box 17000 Station Forces, Victoria, BC, Canada V9A 7N2. My direct line: (250) 363-2061. Home: (250) 382-0068

Offline
Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 11:44pm #100
wasmaba
Administrator
Religion_peaceful
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Sun, 20 Jul 2014
Posts: 2729

Daniel R Plante wrote:

The fact that b has some inkling of this picture with absolutely no relevant academic background whatsoever, while you profess expertise but have completely missed the mark due to an obviously narrow physics background and mountains of incorrect assumptions, is kind of amazing to me :)

It it nice to see the adults post. Keep it up B and DRP.


EEStor’s legitimacy is a job for Carl Sagan and Sherlock Holmes. Times are a changing.
http://theeestory.com/posts/47263 TY B,TV,Nekote. http://theeestory.com/topics/1949

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 12:04am #101
spaceballs_3000
EESUrient
Bill_the_cat
Registered: Dec, 2008
Last visit: Sat, 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 2024

Inability to detect lies may be early sign of dementia, UCSF study shows

True Believers, you might want to get checked...


The only thing that will slowly change believer's minds is years of unfulfilled promises.

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 12:17am #102
Eenigma
EExhilarating
Wales51
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 3124

Y_Po wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.

Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.


With a few very minor quibbles, I have to say that b is profoundly correct. EEStor's technique is not a simple dipole, it is a compound system that provides most of the polarization with one feature and most of the elasticity with a different non-linear feature. The result of the intimate coupling between these two features provides negative feedback that results in a high yet stabilized "effective permittivity" over a very large range of net electric field.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation with a thermostat, where the current through a bi-metallic strip vs the strip's bending angle is non-linear, yet the room's temperature is held very constant by the nature of these two coupled features reacting to the room's temperature, not the separate nature of each of the two individual components themselves.

The fact that b has some inkling of this picture with absolutely no relevant academic background whatsoever, while you profess expertise but have completely missed the mark due to an obviously narrow physics background and mountains of incorrect assumptions, is kind of amazing to me :)


You are a degenerate too. There are no such thing as "simple dipole" Just because that piece of shit senile degenerate/liar Weir used that phrase does not mean it has right to exist.

Regarding EEstor Dr Cross said



DR Cross: It is not a simple dipole system. I think that the more that people promulgate these ideas of a simple dipole system the less they will have respectability.

Now that deserves a double MUAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAH

MUAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAH

Some of us have excellent memories and know who said what when & where.


Front row seats with Y_No

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 2:42am #103
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Eenigma, give a source for that quote, you piece of shit.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 2:47am #104
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

Inability to detect lies may be early sign of dementia, UCSF study shows

True Believers, you might want to get checked...

LOL, they should check Weir first :)


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 4:03am #105
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 03 Jul 2014
Posts: 4011

I think Dr. Cross was referring to DW. He also said this:

"There are many scientists who have the competence to do the simple calculation and show what it is, impossible.

...My theory is that [DW et al are] not dishonest persons. That they actually have measured something and that they have come up with an explanation which is totally impossible."


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 4:04am #106
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

student wrote:

I think Dr. Cross was referring to DW. He also said this:

"There are many scientists who have the competence to do the simple calculation and show what it is, impossible.

...My theory is that they're not dishonest persons. That they actually have measured something and that they have come up with an explanation which is totally impossible."

Yes, and B used "simple dipole" in his question.
Basically, Cross said "Assuming it exists, it can't be a capacitor" and I agree with Cross there.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 4:31am #107
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

Inability to detect lies may be early sign of dementia, UCSF study shows

True Believers, you might want to get checked...

Another reason why old people should not be allowed to vote.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 4:34am #108
student
EExhilarating
999-plan
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 03 Jul 2014
Posts: 4011

From Cross interview:

C: The ideas that they present are laughable.

B: Ok. Is it because they create the sense that they're working with a simple dipole system?

C: That's right.


Bill Nye says limits for a dielectric are simply what have been demonstrated to date.


Jack LaLanne

student scale: 1.5%

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 4:59am #109
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648


B: So what do you think of that? I mean ...

01:48

C: Well, it's obvious that the EEStor device is not a pure capacitor.

B: umhh

C: It couldn't be.

B: Yes.

C: At those energy densities, it's impossible.

B: ummh

C: So, saturation in Barium Titanate would in fact, completely invalidated their claim that the
material has a permittivity of 20,000 at a mega-Volt per centimeter.


B: ummhh

C: It is just not possible.

B: Yes.

C: 'Cause the ions would be outside the unit cell.

B: ummhh. ummhh

B: So it can't be a simple dipole system.

C: It is not a simple dipole system.

02:24

C: But this doesn't say that it's impossible.

B: ummhh. ummhh. ummhh

C: But uhh ... I think that the more that people promulgate these ideas of a simple dipole system the less they will have respectability

B: ummhh

C: Because there are many scientists who have the competence to do the simple calculation and show what it is impossible.

Cross is just repeating my (3 year old) explanation. Yet B and other degenerates somehow see that as positive news for EEStor.


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 6:06am #110
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

B wrote:

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.

B quoting Y_Po 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

Y_Po calculated max polarization per lattice cell. Does not matter what type of system - for EESU to work this must be 60C/m^2, not the ~1C/m^2 limit found in crystal lattices.

Y_Po "ferrorelectrics" is generic name for materials like CMBT, whether in feroelectrric or paraelectric mode. They have been extensively studies in both modes so don't let Weir's "paraelectric" confuse yoyu. The Y_Po calculation works identically in both modes.

"non-simple dipole systems". You need a woo-woo word I guess.

If this means variants on space charge (bound or unbound) it categorically does not help. I showed this quite recently. Basically the space charge always moved to shield the inside of the material from the external field, so ED is limited by Emax, Pmax on outer edge of material which is calculated as before. I gave a very general proof of this - but it would go over your head.

If it means something else no-one has suggested a viable way to get high lattice polarization, nor is there any evidence anywhere in the literature. (TP here comes nearest with something that require BdV of 3000V/u in BT and asymmetrical behaviour from lattice cells and has zero experimental or simulation evidence. He was pushed to this weird idea, away from space charge, because of my pointing out the inherent difficulties of all space charge models).

As for Y_Po's mental state etc - I leave him to answer that. But I would not stake your EESU belief on ideas about Y_Po mental state if I were you.

If you know any academic (or tech competent non-academic) anywhere who believes your woo-woo give me contact details I will talk to them and they will tell me how you misunderstood what they said.

PS - DW does not count - he's not tech competent. Nor does CN, he has conflict of interests, and anyway has stated himself to be non-competent.

Last edited Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 6:14am by ee-tom


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 6:16am #111
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

PS - B's conversation with cross in which simple dipole system is mentioned makes it clear this applies to charge moving outside the unit cell.

It is not immediately apparent this does not help - but when you look hard enough at the electrostatics it becomes very obvious.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 7:04am #112
Technopete
EESUrient
Technopete
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Posts: 2385

ee-tom wrote:

PS - B's conversation with cross in which simple dipole system is mentioned makes it clear this applies to charge moving outside the unit cell.

It is not immediately apparent this does not help - but when you look hard enough at the electrostatics it becomes very obvious.
On the contrary - movement of electrons outside the unit cell and the removal of charge planes that this enables with appropriately tiny domains helps very considerably.

Regards,
Peter

Last edited Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:44am by Technopete


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2. (Only dummies assume this). (I am one of these dummies).

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 7:57am #113
Y_Po
EExhilarating
Zawy_y_go
Registered: May, 2009
Last visit: Thu, 13 Feb 2014
Posts: 5648

Technopete wrote:

ee-tom wrote:

PS - B's conversation with cross in which simple dipole system is mentioned makes it clear this applies to charge moving outside the unit cell.

It is not immediately apparent this does not help - but when you look hard enough at the electrostatics it becomes very obvious.
On the contrary - movement of electrons outside the unit cell and the removal of charge planes that this enables will appropriately tiny domains helps very considerably.

Regards,
Peter


Sure, call Cross and tell him that :)


Q: What would happen if you give 12V battery and two 6V light bulbs to Weir/Nelson?

A: They will wait 8 years for 12V➜6V DC-DC converter.

http://theeestory.com/topics/3687
http://theeestory.com/topics/2105
http://theeestory.com/topics/4835

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 10:39am #114
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

Technopete wrote:

ee-tom wrote:

PS - B's conversation with cross in which simple dipole system is mentioned makes it clear this applies to charge moving outside the unit cell.

It is not immediately apparent this does not help - but when you look hard enough at the electrostatics it becomes very obvious.
On the contrary - movement of electrons outside the unit cell and the removal of charge planes that this enables will appropriately tiny domains helps very considerably.

Regards,
Peter

TP - your (matt's) 1d conduction idea - which is effectively radically changing the plate topology - turning the volume dielectric into a dense mess of needles projecting from opposite plates and forming a structure in which the field between the needles is very high - is not what I was referring to as space charge, and not what we all call space charge either.

Whatever you call it, it has its own problems, as you will be the first to admit.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 10:53am #115
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

B, you degenerate. I was and still right in that ~3 year old post. Nothing really changed in my position.

Also, just because you are too retarded to understand physics does not have mean that you are too retarded to understand that you are too retarded to understand physics.


With a few very minor quibbles, I have to say that B is profoundly correct. EEStor's technique is not a simple dipole, it is a compound system that provides most of the polarization with one feature and most of the elasticity with a different non-linear feature. The result of the intimate coupling between these two features provides negative feedback that results in a high yet stabilized "effective permittivity" over a very large range of net electric field.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation with a thermostat, where the current through a bi-metallic strip vs the strip's bending angle is non-linear, yet the room's temperature is held very constant by the nature of these two coupled features reacting to the room's temperature, not the separate nature of each of the two individual components themselves.

The fact that b has some inkling of this picture with absolutely no relevant academic background whatsoever, while you profess expertise but have completely missed the mark due to an obviously narrow physics background and mountains of incorrect assumptions, is kind of amazing to me :)

Since you are criticising Y_Po, whose qualifications (and, for me, arguments) is this area are better than yours.

I judge people not by qualifications, or names, but by how well they defend their arguments. Y_Po did all this a long time ago, and his arguments remain valid now. He has just stopped restating them when presented with people who use big words and quote solid state stuff but can't defend any alternative view.

In your case, whenever we have debated your ideas (and I don't propose to repeat this now) you have made zero contribution to the quantitative issues. In fact you do not appear to have any substantive ideas, just a collection of favourite phrases plucked without full understanding from other people's research papers. I don't like this lack of transparency.

You have in the past posted a lot about anonynous posters. I guess it is because I am inherently not a troll - I respond to post content, not personally to poster - so I don't care what qualifications people do or do not have, or how untransparent their identity. But I do care when they argue without specifically engaging, and defending their ideas in detail. Anyone who is honest enough to admit they are out of their depth (I do it occasionally) is fine. But you have never done this, and also have not been able to state your arguments, a lack of transparency I find misleading.

OK - that was a post repsonding to all the troll-like - "Y_Po's ideas are rubbish" from those who have no understanding of the fundamentals on which his posts were based, but somehow claim this.

Perhaps "don't feed the trolls" would be a better policy for me.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:05am #116
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

DRP wrote:

it is a compound system that provides most of the polarization with one feature and most of the elasticity with a different non-linear feature

Just to make good my statement above. Polarization (modern view, see TP who likes this too) is defined by movement of charge. There is not, inside the EEstor lattice, enough electron or ion movement to provide 60C/m^2. If electrons move outside the lattice then the EEstor results can still only be obtained with lattice breakdown much much higher than Weir claims (which BTW is supported by many others - his figures for breakdown make sense). I have explained this quite recently in some detail.

Your "polarization feature" is (I think) some kind of outside cell charge movement, in which case high polarization will inevitably result in impossibly high lattice fields. If you explain in more detail I will prove this in more detail for your proposed system. But you could instead look at my more abstract general proof.


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:22am #117
JCatania
EESUrient
Pic
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 2995

ee-tom wrote:

B wrote:

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.

B quoting Y_Po 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

Y_Po calculated max polarization per lattice cell. Does not matter what type of system - for EESU to work this must be 60C/m^2, not the ~1C/m^2 limit found in crystal lattices.

Y_Po "ferrorelectrics" is generic name for materials like CMBT, whether in feroelectrric or paraelectric mode. They have been extensively studies in both modes so don't let Weir's "paraelectric" confuse yoyu. The Y_Po calculation works identically in both modes.

"non-simple dipole systems". You need a woo-woo word I guess.

If this means variants on space charge (bound or unbound) it categorically does not help. I showed this quite recently. Basically the space charge always moved to shield the inside of the material from the external field, so ED is limited by Emax, Pmax on outer edge of material which is calculated as before. I gave a very general proof of this - but it would go over your head.

If it means something else no-one has suggested a viable way to get high lattice polarization, nor is there any evidence anywhere in the literature. (TP here comes nearest with something that require BdV of 3000V/u in BT and asymmetrical behaviour from lattice cells and has zero experimental or simulation evidence. He was pushed to this weird idea, away from space charge, because of my pointing out the inherent difficulties of all space charge models).

As for Y_Po's mental state etc - I leave him to answer that. But I would not stake your EESU belief on ideas about Y_Po mental state if I were you.

If you know any academic (or tech competent non-academic) anywhere who believes your woo-woo give me contact details I will talk to them and they will tell me how you misunderstood what they said.

PS - DW does not count - he's not tech competent. Nor does CN, he has conflict of interests, and anyway has stated himself to be non-competent.

Unfortunately even if the permittivity dropped right off a cliff at 1/10 the EEStor macroscopic field the energy density would only be affected by as much so we'd have a material with 1000J/cc.

Last edited Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:35am by JCatania


Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics.

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:29am #118
ee-tom
EExhilarating
Images
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Fri, 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 8158

Jcat wrote:

Unfortunately even if the permittivity dropped right of a cliff at 1/10 the EEStor macroscopic field the energy density would only be affected by as much so we'd have a material with 1000J/cc.

That is not technically true, because ED ~ V^2 for constant k. More realistically k "drops off a cliff" at some limiting polarization. In which case for optimum ED 1/10 of EEstor you need k tuned down to 2000.

But the Y_Po limit on polarization is lower than this, more like 1/20 EEstor, for 500J/cc at k = 1000.

Note that higher k leads to lower ED, for "drop off a cliff" at fixed max polarization.

Best wishes, Tom


Assumptions: 1) E=1/2CV2

(Only dummies assume this)

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 11:42am #119
JCatania
EESUrient
Pic
Registered: Dec, 2009
Last visit: Mon, 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 2995

You have clearly misunderstood. I think a reread of my post is in order. Anyhow if, as you have said, that permittivity must drop off at some field, even if it did so at the voltage I mention we'd have a ED higher than your limit. What you'd be saying is that for a material of k=20,000 the k drops to zero at 17.5MV/m. I find that unbelievable and your (now)500J/cc number unexpained by the physics. Clearly the electrons will respond to any increase in field as they must increase their separation under such an increase.


Nothing in life is certain except death, taxes and the second law of thermodynamics.

Offline
Sat, 16 Apr 2011, 12:07pm #120
Eenigma
EExhilarating
Wales51
Registered: Apr, 2009
Last visit: Wed, 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 3124

Daniel R Plante wrote:

With a few very minor quibbles, I have to say that b is profoundly correct.

I agree 100% with your reading. Obviously b hit a home run with that post or ee tom and Y_Po would be going postal in thread they are not suppose to post in. Like I said before put a gold frame around that post.


Front row seats with Y_No

Offline