TheEEStory.com

Stop adding cornflour then !!

mark

LoL @ ee-tom

Mark

Wow, Christine is the anti Y_Po.

One question what is your take on DW's talking about electrons free to make electron clouds ...

Mark

nice work Eev.

Would the coating be elastic or rigid ... ie would a transition to tetra be tolerated by the coating or would it damage the coating ?

Mark

I'm with you the dopping and extreme purity give nice cubic paraelectric crystals. The coating of Al2O3 coudhelp stabilise transition and extend the range of temperaturesthat it remains in PE phase, but is primarily a anti aging feature.

Mark

Student, are you functionally illiterate ?

I say patent, you seem to read granted patent.

You are in a thread about a patent app, there are 20 patents 5 granted which there is ample proof do exist. EEStor have not ceased trading.... everything is good... except for this insane belief that a patent app doesn't exist until its patented. The truth is that even an abandoned patent can show prior art, it does exist and is relevant.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/docum...

Mark

You truly have no clue do you !

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

New patents! Yay ...

This topic is about a patent application !

The tally he is talking about includes patent applications !

S3k was joking or at least putting the patent list in a humourus context.

There are 20 patents in process 5 granted you can spin it any way you want.

Mark

Student, how about you understand what was being discussed before you point out to us illiterate country bumpkins what the difference between patent apps and patents are ?

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

New patents! Yay, what is the new tally of the found patents? Are we getting close to the original 15 before they closed up shop.

mark wrote:

Sorry 3000_pants_on_fire EEStor now have 20 patents :(

student wrote:

Really? according to the recent reply to the patent office (http://69.12.216.103/files/11369255_new.pdf), DW only has 21+ patents and 15 patents pending - total.

How do you get 20 patents granted for EEStor from that? Are you assuming DW is not mentioning 14 or 15 patents in his reply to the patent office?

Perhaps if you don't understand what people are discussing you could ask before getting on your soap box and trying to teach people what they already know.

Mark

EEStor Patents

5 granted
2 viewable pending
3 known app number pending
10 unknown pending

= 20

Mark

PNeilson wrote:

The patent office has some magic powder that proves it!

Why would you say that ?

Mark

Sorry 3000_pants_on_fire EEStor now have 20 patents :(

Mark

It COULD be a coincedense...

Mark

The tested k @1v was done on powder that was coated.

I showed that the quoted improvement @ x% was from the coated k quoted in the patent. The coating in this instance does not improve k but actually lowers k aprox 18% (from memory).

The coating seems to be to help in stopping aging and breakdown.

I would very very much like to veiw the particles coated/uncoated and after polarization.... perhaps one day.

Mark

I think these patents allow them to sell the powder process under licence to someone like sachem .....

But what do I know?

Mark

ee-tom wrote:

Could somone (preferably a chemist) help me?

This material describes a method to make CMBT with higher than usual breakdown through the use (critically) of tetraalkylammonium hydroxde as a precipitating agent.

The point is that this does not leave alkali metal ions in the solution - which then combine with the precipitated powder and reduce breakdown.

This is all consistent and good.

Weir argues that this step (using TAAH) would not be expected if combined with reflux because this agent has undesirable properties, allowing differential dissolution of different metal ions from the precepitate as it is refluxed, due to the drop in Ph that accompanies such reflux.

This is plausible. So Weir has perhaps a good chance of patenting this method for making high breakdown CMBT.

What I don't understand is where is the step that adds the al2o3 coating? The claims here say that the precipitated CMBT powder is calcined and then sintered. Surely the al2o3 coating must be formed in aqueous solution before calcining??

Is there another patent describing this process, or am I missing something?

BTW - I have always thought this patent, and Weir's claims to be able to make higher-breakdown CMBT plausible.

Sorry not a Chemist but.......

patent 7033406 wrote:

........washing with deionized-water, drying, and then calcining 1050.degree. C. in air; b) fabricating an aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3) coating of 100 .ANG. thickness onto the wet-chemical-prepared calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder, with the use of aluminum nitrate nonahydrate precursor applied by wet chemical means, then calcining at 1050.degree. C., resulting in a single-coated calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder; c) fabricating onto the alumina-coated composition-modified barium titanate powder,

Just to clarify the powder is produced and calcined then the coating al203 is applied via a wet process then the re-calcined to form a single 100ang coating. The glass patents indicate a second second glass coating. The PET patent does not havea seperate coating process but does have PET as part of the high k dielectric layer that would likely provide a similar function after HIP and polarization.

Mark

Last edited Tue, 20 Jul 2010, 5:00am by Mark