TheEEStory.com

Dielectrics and Energy Storage:

Here's the long and short of it, a little simpler and more detailed than most "science" type posts. Skip down to the analogy first if you wish.



Our problem is that we need a dielectric material that is able to express a large polarization. That is, we need a material that is able to separate a large amount of charge over a long distance. But it's not just the distance alone, and it's not just the amount of charge.

If you get to the maximum separation distance for a given charge within a field of only 1 V/um, then you won't be storing very much energy. In other words, the charge is too easy to separate to the maximum distance, which is the crux of the problem with using conductive particles alone - you need a material that provides some resistance to having its charges separated.

Also, the resistance needs to be fairly constant over a useful separation distance before it starts to resist too much. In other words, the resistance should be linear until it won't stretch well anymore and ends up "saturating".

But most importantly, this resistance needs to be "elastic" - that is, the energy applied to the resistance needs to be passively reversible - think "spring" instead of "shock absorber". Now, you don't want the elastic resistance to be too large, or you won't get much charge separation before your applied E-Field strength gets so high that your material breaks down.

So, added to our requirement for large polarization we also need an optimum "elastic resistance" in that polarization mechanism. These are the fundamental features that need to be addressed for a high energy storage dielectric material.



Here's an analogy:

Say for instance you have three materials, a pile of 10,000 feet of fishing line, a 20 foot length of surgical rubber tubing, and 1 foot of Bungee cord. Each of these three represents different approaches to providing permittivity in a dielectric medium. Assume that the fishing line represents conductive metal particles, the surgical rubber represents standard (undoped, unmodified) BaTiO3, and the Bungee cord represents the latest high voltage glass dielectric.


1) Fishing line = conductive particle: Attach the free end of the line to a fishing reel. Make a mark 1,000 feet down along the line. Climb up to the top of the CN Tower 1,000 feet high so that the mark you made just starts to lift off the ground. The 1,000 foot height represents the really long dipole you can get if you separate free charges to the ends of a 1 micron long particle. Now start reeling it up. It's very easy to reel, isn't it? The only resistance you might feel is just a little bit from the weight of the line itself since it's just sitting in a pile at the bottom and there's nothing else holding it back. Ok, once you've reeled up the mark you placed on the thread, that means you displaced 1,000 feet of line.

Now turn the directional switch on the reel and let the line reel out on its own. It doesn't exactly spin like you've got a marlin on the end of the line, does it? Tick....... tick...... tick...... goes the reel, until the line is all reeled back out and the 1,000 foot marker is back on the ground. Sure, it was a long distance, but there wasn't much tension pulling the line back, just the weight of it. As it reeled out you could have stopped it just by applying the slightest thumb pressure to the reel's spindle. The total energy put in to reel it all up, or total energy released as it unreeled was not much. And there was 8,000 feet of line still available so you could have kept reeling it up for a VERY long time and you wouldn't have come to a point where it got appreciably harder to reel in. This corresponds to the fact that a metal particle has a virtually inexhaustible supply of free electrons no matter how many volts per micron you place across it, so practically speaking you won't get to the point where you start to feel some added resistance (saturation) as when the available electrons start running out. Very long dipole x Very, very little tension = low total energy storable per unit volume.


2) Surgical tubing = standard BaTiO3: Use a rickety old 20-foot wooden ladder and 20 feet of tubing. Anchor one end of the tubing to the ground and make a mark along it at the 10 foot point. Grab the free end and climb to the top of the ladder. Attach the free end to a cheap plastic garden hose reel. Start cranking. The surgical tubing stretches easily, but you can still feel the burn in your arms after about 3 or 4 turns. Keep cranking until you've stretched the tubing to the point where the 10-foot mark just makes it to the hose reel. If you had kept cranking past this point, you'd notice that it would start to get a lot harder to crank another turn on the reel. This corresponds to the beginning of "saturation". If you had kept cranking it even a little more, the tension might be so great that the stress on top of the rickety old ladder might cause the ladder's legs to splinter. This corresponds to "breakdown". The strength of the ladder's old wooden lattice can't handle the stress.

But we stopped at the 10-foot point to avoid the case of "diminishing returns". So, now turn the directional switch on the reel and let the line reel out on its own. whiiiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Like a marlin on the end of your line. Not as long of a play-out as the previous example of conductive particles/fishing line, but much, much more energy stored per turn. Medium length dipole x medium tension = medium total energy storable per unit volume.


3) Bungee cord = glass dielectric: Use a light-duty steel hand winch mounted on a 1 foot tall granite slab. Anchor one end of the 1 foot long piece of bungie cord to the ground, and attach the other end to the winch. We're using the kind of bungie cord that they strap 2 people to before they push them off the bridge. Heavy duty stuff. Now crank away. Good luck getting more than 1/2 a turn out of it before you just can't turn hard enough. If you had got your friend to help, you might get a whole turn out of it, but you might also shear the handle off the axle. This represents dielectric breakdown. Notice how it didn't get any harder to turn than it already was, before the handle sheared. The glass represents low-permittivity material (high resistance to polarization), which will typically breakdown long before its dipoles saturate (get harder to stretch).

But, we stopped at half of a turn. Turn the directional switch on the winch and let it go. WHZ!! Very short play-out, but wow - lots of power behind it. Short dipole x high tension = medium to high total energy storable per unit volume.



So we've got charge, distance and elasticity - those are the 3 factors that determine electrostatic energy storage density. For maximum storage density we want to have a dieletric with the highest charge amount possible at the highest separation distance possible, and we also want the ideal amount of elasticity in that system so that the voltage isn't too high before the charges reach the maximum useful separation distance (breakdown way before saturation), or so that the voltage isn't too low before we reach maximum useful separation distance (saturation way before breakdown).

That's it. That's all there is to how a dielectric material helps to store more energy in an electrostatic capacitor, and analogies 2 and 3 above illustrate the limitations of normal (intrinsic) dipoles, and analogy 1 shows conductive particle limits - it's a study in trade offs that simply can't store even a hundredth of the energy that EEStor claims.

However, if you've been paying attention you've probably said to yourself: "Yeah, but what about combining the CN Tower from #1 and the surgical tubing from #2? Wouldn't we be able to crank away at a medium tension for a hell of a long time without building up so much stress that we break something? How much total energy would that store?".

Good question. Is there a way to impart some BaTiO3-like dipole elasticity to normally un-elastic mobile charges (electrons/holes) that can span the entire length of the 1-micron particle? That would be 2,500 times longer than the BT molecule's unit cell, but would have BT's elasticity (permittivity). I think that EEStor knows how to do it.

---

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Dielectrics and Energy Storage:

Here's the long and short of it, a little simpler and more detailed than most "science" type posts. Skip down to the analogy first if you wish.



Our problem is that we need a dielectric material that is able to express a large polarization. That is, we need a material that is able to separate a large amount of charge over a long distance. But it's not just the distance alone, and it's not just the amount of charge.

If you get to the maximum separation distance for a given charge within a field of only 1 V/um, then you won't be storing very much energy. In other words, the charge is too easy to separate to the maximum distance, which is the crux of the problem with using conductive particles alone - you need a material that provides some resistance to having its charges separated.

Also, the resistance needs to be fairly constant over a useful separation distance before it starts to resist too much. In other words, the resistance should be linear until it won't stretch well anymore and ends up "saturating".

But most importantly, this resistance needs to be "elastic" - that is, the energy applied to the resistance needs to be passively reversible - think "spring" instead of "shock absorber". Now, you don't want the elastic resistance to be too large, or you won't get much charge separation before your applied E-Field strength gets so high that your material breaks down.

So, added to our requirement for large polarization we also need an optimum "elastic resistance" in that polarization mechanism. These are the fundamental features that need to be addressed for a high energy storage dielectric material.



Here's an analogy:

Say for instance you have three materials, a pile of 10,000 feet of fishing line, a 20 foot length of surgical rubber tubing, and 1 foot of Bungee cord. Each of these three represents different approaches to providing permittivity in a dielectric medium. Assume that the fishing line represents conductive metal particles, the surgical rubber represents standard (undoped, unmodified) BaTiO3, and the Bungee cord represents the latest high voltage glass dielectric.


1) Fishing line = conductive particle: Attach the free end of the line to a fishing reel. Make a mark 1,000 feet down along the line. Climb up to the top of the CN Tower 1,000 feet high so that the mark you made just starts to lift off the ground. The 1,000 foot height represents the really long dipole you can get if you separate free charges to the ends of a 1 micron long particle. Now start reeling it up. It's very easy to reel, isn't it? The only resistance you might feel is just a little bit from the weight of the line itself since it's just sitting in a pile at the bottom and there's nothing else holding it back. Ok, once you've reeled up the mark you placed on the thread, that means you displaced 1,000 feet of line.

Now turn the directional switch on the reel and let the line reel out on its own. It doesn't exactly spin like you've got a marlin on the end of the line, does it? Tick....... tick...... tick...... goes the reel, until the line is all reeled back out and the 1,000 foot marker is back on the ground. Sure, it was a long distance, but there wasn't much tension pulling the line back, just the weight of it. As it reeled out you could have stopped it just by applying the slightest thumb pressure to the reel's spindle. The total energy put in to reel it all up, or total energy released as it unreeled was not much. And there was 8,000 feet of line still available so you could have kept reeling it up for a VERY long time and you wouldn't have come to a point where it got appreciably harder to reel in. This corresponds to the fact that a metal particle has a virtually inexhaustible supply of free electrons no matter how many volts per micron you place across it, so practically speaking you won't get to the point where you start to feel some added resistance (saturation) as when the available electrons start running out. Very long dipole x Very, very little tension = low total energy storable per unit volume.


2) Surgical tubing = standard BaTiO3: Use a rickety old 20-foot wooden ladder and 20 feet of tubing. Anchor one end of the tubing to the ground and make a mark along it at the 10 foot point. Grab the free end and climb to the top of the ladder. Attach the free end to a cheap plastic garden hose reel. Start cranking. The surgical tubing stretches easily, but you can still feel the burn in your arms after about 3 or 4 turns. Keep cranking until you've stretched the tubing to the point where the 10-foot mark just makes it to the hose reel. If you had kept cranking past this point, you'd notice that it would start to get a lot harder to crank another turn on the reel. This corresponds to the beginning of "saturation". If you had kept cranking it even a little more, the tension might be so great that the stress on top of the rickety old ladder might cause the ladder's legs to splinter. This corresponds to "breakdown". The strength of the ladder's old wooden lattice can't handle the stress.

But we stopped at the 10-foot point to avoid the case of "diminishing returns". So, now turn the directional switch on the reel and let the line reel out on its own. whiiiiizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Like a marlin on the end of your line. Not as long of a play-out as the previous example of conductive particles/fishing line, but much, much more energy stored per turn. Medium length dipole x medium tension = medium total energy storable per unit volume.


3) Bungee cord = glass dielectric: Use a light-duty steel hand winch mounted on a 1 foot tall granite slab. Anchor one end of the 1 foot long piece of bungie cord to the ground, and attach the other end to the winch. We're using the kind of bungie cord that they strap 2 people to before they push them off the bridge. Heavy duty stuff. Now crank away. Good luck getting more than 1/2 a turn out of it before you just can't turn hard enough. If you had got your friend to help, you might get a whole turn out of it, but you might also shear the handle off the axle. This represents dielectric breakdown. Notice how it didn't get any harder to turn than it already was, before the handle sheared. The glass represents low-permittivity material (high resistance to polarization), which will typically breakdown long before its dipoles saturate (get harder to stretch).

But, we stopped at half of a turn. Turn the directional switch on the winch and let it go. WHZ!! Very short play-out, but wow - lots of power behind it. Short dipole x high tension = medium to high total energy storable per unit volume.



So we've got charge, distance and elasticity - those are the 3 factors that determine electrostatic energy storage density. For maximum storage density we want to have a dieletric with the highest charge amount possible at the highest separation distance possible, and we also want the ideal amount of elasticity in that system so that the voltage isn't too high before the charges reach the maximum useful separation distance (breakdown way before saturation), or so that the voltage isn't too low before we reach maximum useful separation distance (saturation way before breakdown).

That's it. That's all there is to how a dielectric material helps to store more energy in an electrostatic capacitor, and analogies 2 and 3 above illustrate the limitations of normal (intrinsic) dipoles, and analogy 1 shows conductive particle limits - it's a study in trade offs that simply can't store even a hundredth of the energy that EEStor claims.

However, if you've been paying attention you've probably said to yourself: "Yeah, but what about combining the CN Tower from #1 and the surgical tubing from #2? Wouldn't we be able to crank away at a medium tension for a hell of a long time without building up so much stress that we break something? How much total energy would that store?".

Good question. Is there a way to impart some BaTiO3-like dipole elasticity to normally un-elastic mobile charges (electrons/holes) that can span the entire length of the 1-micron particle? That would be 2,500 times longer than the BT molecule's unit cell, but would have BT's elasticity (permittivity). I think that EEStor knows how to do it.

Daniel nice post,

I have a quick question on this (dipole elasticity to normally un-elastic mobile charges)

Doping could help here correct?

---

Eenigma wrote:

Daniel nice post,

I have a quick question on this (dipole elasticity to normally un-elastic mobile charges)

Doping could help here correct?

I believe that the right kind, amount and technique of doping is critical, yes. But I also think that the doping is necessary to obtain a coupling between mechanisms in the dielectric. It seems to me that a coupling or linkage of effects is the most probable answer to the energy density.

---

Perhaps, but I don't know how. I can't see a mechanism that would allow for this level of field strength, or how moving electrons would have anything to do with the dielectric characteristics of the material. If that were enough, why not use a metal, where electron movement is much more straightforward? How would the electron affect be elastic? I certainly don't have the answered to all of these questions, but I doesn't seem right. We had a similar conversation on moving the Ti ion more than one lattice distance (within the last few minutes) and I pointed out why this would create a catastrophic failure (on a micro level) in the crystal structure. I would love to put forward an answer of my own...but I can't think of any. I guess that's why I get the "skeptic" label.

---

I'll ask the same question I did in chat. Is it possible that zmc, LM or KP have not hired an sme who could calculate the maximum energy stored by dipoles in cmbt and addressed this issue with eestor, yet?

---

larry wrote:

I'll ask the same question I did in chat. Is it possible that zmc, LM or KP have not hired an sme who could calculate the maximum energy stored by dipoles in cmbt and addressed this issue with eestor, yet?

I would hazard a really good guess that KP and ZNN have each hired SMEs to review the EEStor technology at each and every step and put at least a qualified blessing on the technology. Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

"CN TOWER"

Is that where DW keeps CN? or is it that tower in toronto?

---

larry wrote:

I'll ask the same question I did in chat. Is it possible that zmc, LM or KP have not hired an sme who could calculate the maximum energy stored by dipoles in cmbt and addressed this issue with eestor, yet?

Of course they did. B spoke with one who reviewed EEStor for KP, as I recall. He gave less than glowing reviews, but KP decided to invest anyway. They got answers they found satisfactory, but we have no idea who made the final decisions and what calculus they put into play. Maybe they could convince a few of us "skeptics". But we don't have that information, so we post what we do know.

---

Goooose4 wrote:

Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

Zenn got something like $30 million in 3 stock offerings on the back of the EEStor dream after investing only $6.8 million in EEStor. They could not have done this if they had sent a qualified SME like John Miller there because he would have reported it's "beyond fantasy" and they would have been required to disclose this evaluation when offering new stock. Evaluating the technology was, and still is, a no-win situation for Zenn. Their new stock offering will again probably bring in more money than they pay to EEStor. What would they gain by discovering the technology is not there?

---

zawy wrote:

Goooose4 wrote:

Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

Zenn got something like $30 million in 3 stock offerings on the back of the EEStor dream after investing only $6.8 million in EEStor. They could not have done this if they had sent a qualified SME like John Miller there because he would have reported it's "beyond fantasy" and they would have been required to disclose this evaluation when offering new stock. Evaluating the technology was, and still is, a no-win situation for Zenn. Their new stock offering will again probably bring in more money than they pay to EEStor. What would they gain by discovering the technology is not there?

Zawy,

Out of curiosity are stating fact? It seems your 100% sure Zenn did not employ an SME to evaluate the technology being discussed. This is new information to me. As an owner of Zenn stock I may have to rethink my position based on your post.

---

ricinro wrote:

"CN TOWER"

Is that where DW keeps CN? or is it that tower in toronto?

Toronto during the March AGM. I like the idea of Carl Nelson nestled away in a lab at the top of the CN Tower, chuckling and cackling hysterically as he mixes different beakers full of day-glo chemicals, while bunsen burners and jacob's ladders crackle and fizzle around him... :)

---

Goooose4 wrote:

larry wrote:

I'll ask the same question I did in chat. Is it possible that zmc, LM or KP have not hired an sme who could calculate the maximum energy stored by dipoles in cmbt and addressed this issue with eestor, yet?

I would hazard a really good guess that KP and ZNN have each hired SMEs to review the EEStor technology at each and every step and put at least a qualified blessing on the technology. Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

Nope, I can't imagine that at all. I've always considered it a very silly conjecture.

---

Hey, that's Front Street. Union Station (Toronto one) is right in front of you. Lots of really good bars around there.

---

mjtimber wrote:

larry wrote:

I'll ask the same question I did in chat. Is it possible that zmc, LM or KP have not hired an sme who could calculate the maximum energy stored by dipoles in cmbt and addressed this issue with eestor, yet?

Of course they did. B spoke with one who reviewed EEStor for KP, as I recall. He gave less than glowing reviews, but KP decided to invest anyway. They got answers they found satisfactory, but we have no idea who made the final decisions and what calculus they put into play. Maybe they could convince a few of us "skeptics". But we don't have that information, so we post what we do know.

We might only know half of that particular story, since other SMEs that might have signed NDAs would not be heard from.

---

Daniel R Plante wrote:

mjtimber wrote:

Of course they did. B spoke with one who reviewed EEStor for KP, as I recall. He gave less than glowing reviews, but KP decided to invest anyway. They got answers they found satisfactory, but we have no idea who made the final decisions and what calculus they put into play. Maybe they could convince a few of us "skeptics". But we don't have that information, so we post what we do know.

We might only know half of that particular story, since other SMEs that might have signed NDAs would not be heard from.

True enough. That's pretty much what I said above, I believe.

---

zawy wrote:

Goooose4 wrote:

Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

Zenn got something like $30 million in 3 stock offerings on the back of the EEStor dream after investing only $6.8 million in EEStor. They could not have done this if they had sent a qualified SME like John Miller there because he would have reported it's "beyond fantasy" and they would have been required to disclose this evaluation when offering new stock. Evaluating the technology was, and still is, a no-win situation for Zenn. Their new stock offering will again probably bring in more money than they pay to EEStor. What would they gain by discovering the technology is not there?

Nope. Not even close to factual.

---

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Nope. Not even close to factual.

Can you elaborate on the factual? Just for my education?

---

bitslider wrote:

Hey, that's Front Street. Union Station (Toronto one) is right in front of you. Lots of really good bars around there.

Yeah, didn't have the time (or the money) for the bars (sigh).

---

mjtimber wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Nope. Not even close to factual.

Can you elaborate on the factual? Just for my education?

Sure. It's taken dozens of people close to a year to gather it all from the four corners of the Earth and drop it in your lap. Search --> Posts --> <enter search term>.

Don't forget to thank them.

---

Daniel R Plante wrote:

mjtimber wrote:

Daniel R Plante wrote:

Nope. Not even close to factual.

Can you elaborate on the factual? Just for my education?

Sure. It's taken dozens of people close to a year to gather it all from the four corners of the Earth and drop it in your lap. Search --> Posts --> <enter search term>.

Don't forget to thank them.

Well, I just went through every post on here, and I still have questions. What to do...I have a legit question, and you go and Y_Po me?

I guess I'll have to ask more specifically, as there are far more topics on this blog than addressed in his post. There were four sentences, so let's take them one at a time:
1) Are the numbers inaccurate?
2) Do we know that Zenn has sent an SME? You just told me that we didn't.
3) Do you know that Zenn will not be able to raise more money than they will provide to EEStor?
4) Pure conjecture, could go either way.

I was not defending Zawy in any way, obviously he's trying to get a rise. I was looking for facts on any of the three answerable items above. Do you have any? Or was your post more conjecture, as opposed to factual, as well?

Last edited Tue, 30 Jun 2009, 10:40pm by mjtimber

---

Perovskite dielectric materials are a wonderfully functional (functional = electrically active) class of materials that depending on constituents and how it is doped can exhibit a wide variety of properties. Multiferroics have the ability to exhibit more than one property at the same time. Specifically I am considering the properties of ferroelectricity and ferromagnatisim. I have discussed this before but it seems from the feedback that only Pneilson understood it and I do not think that I am 100% on all of the details yet.

The reason that I am pursuing this line of inquiry is that a while back I had a discussion about this topic with someone who is, if not the top QM physicist in the United States is at least in the top 5. He is employed in industry as opposed to being an academic (not that makes a difference.) He had never heard of EEStor or Zenn but he does know LM and MT. I told him what EEStor was trying to do and I conveyed to him accurately the energy density that was being claimed. I told him that according to a recent press release that EEStor claimed that they were operating deep within the paraelectric phase over the temperature range of –20 to 65 C. He immediately asked me what was the particle size that EEStor was using. I told him that the patent claimed a 0.67 micron particle and he said that was way to big and that the paraelectric phase could not exist over that temperature range in a particle larger than 10 nanometers. I have subsequently found at least two references that confirm this.

I told him about the comparative volumes of the paraelectric and ferroelectric phases and how they coated it with alumina and reacted it at high temperature to lock in the paraelectric phase and he agreed with the material science.

I asked him if he thought what EEStor was trying to do was possible and he said “oh yea.” Even though I have always maintained that it was more interesting to think that EEStor has done this thing and try to figure out how they did it, I have to say I was floored. I said “what?” “Yes the material that you are describing is called a multiferroic and it has only been described in the literature for the past 15 years. Specifically you are probably looking at simultaneous ferroelectricty and ferromagnatism.”

I have also have had indication from another source that there is a significant magnetic component to what EEStor is doing, therefore it is the multiferroic route that I am exploring. Please understand that this is not the same mechanism as IBLC.

I will not give out names but there are 3 other people who participate on this site who could verify this. As far as the financial concerns of many of the people read this site, I could care less. I am only interested in the science of this thing.

Now lets examine some materials science concepts. In general, as you travel from the lower left of the periodic table to the upper right electronegativity increases. Carbon is in the upper right and covalently bonded carbon (diamond) is considered to be as close to 100% covalently bonded as you can get. Silicon is here and also silicon carbide. These are all hard materials.

Aluminum and oxygen are both in the upper right also. Barium comes from the lower left and titanium is also on the left hand side of the table. We say that BaTiO3 is to a higher degree ironically bonded and Al2O3 is much more covalently bonded. What that means is that for Al2O3 the bonding electrons are shared between the atomic species and that for BaTiO3 the bonding electrons will be more on the oxygen.

All materials that are not conductors have a dielectric constant. For Al2O3, which is covalently bonded, the polarization mechanism is electronic. This means that the mean location of the electrons will shift under an applied electric field. BaTiO3 has an electronic component but I think that we are all aware of the contribution of the central titanium ion. I say ion because the bonding electrons reside mainly on the oxygen and this allows the Ti to move. That and the fact that there is space for it to move.

Now if I were designing a material to have a strong magnetic component I would consider manganese as a substitute for the Ti sites and I would look at Rare Earths for substitutions into the Ba sites as they are respectively similar size ions. It has been a while since I have read the patent but as I recall both of these additives were mentioned.

The bonding electrons are the outermost electrons. Manganese and the Rare Earths have unfilled inner electron shells and therefore can have unpaired electrons. This is what is meant by the electronic structure. Electrons have the quantum property called spin (make no mistake, this is a quantum property). They are said to have ½ spin up or ½ spin down. Spin is what gives magnetism to a material. Normally these spins are arranged randomly and there is no net magnetic force as they cancel one and other out. Spins can be aligned in a magnetic field.

When a charge moves under the influence of an electric field a magnetic field is created at a right angle to the direction current flow. By convention if you point your right thumb in the direction of positive current flow then your fingers will curl in the direction of the magnetic field. This is indisputable. A magnetic field is required as a consequence of special relativity when charge moves relative to the rest of the universe.

If you have two conductors side by side and you flow a current in one then the resulting magnetic field will induce a current in the opposite direction in the other conductor even though they are not touching. This cannot be disputed.

If you flow equal current through parallel conductors in the same direction this will set up magnetic fields that are equal and opposing one and other. If the conductors are unrestrained then they will physically move apart. If they are restrained then the will increase the resistance to current flow in both conductors. This is indisputable.

Now lets consider the EEStor material. When an electric field is applied across the composite material the Ti atom moves. This is exactly the same thing as a charged particle moving with respect to the rest of the universe and a magnetic field is generated at a right angle to the direction of current flow/electric field. This causes unpaired spins to line up and contribute to the magnetic field generated within any given particle. I do not think that this is disputable.

So now I think we are on the edges of the science. I know that I wrote before that maybe considering this to be a paramagnetic phase would be more appropriate but PhilS got me thinking. The problem with this supposed paramagnetic phase is that as soon as the Ti ion reaches some kind of equilibrium i.e. current stops, the generated magnetic field, stops and then random thermal motion returns the spins to random directions and magnetic fields collapses.

If we consider that compressive stress in these coated particles from the applied field causes magnetic domains to form orthogonal to the electric field then the presence of the adjacent ferromagnetic domains should sustain the magnetic field even after current flow reaches equilibrium.

The mechanism here is that the magnetic field for any individual coated particle is equal and opposite to the summation of the magnetic fields of all of the other particles. It is the same for every particle within a given electric field. You need only to use your right hand and borrow someone else’s right hand to convince yourself of this.

These opposing magnetic fields create resistance to the movement of the Ti ion. Hence saturation is never reached. Breakdown does not happen. Particles must be all the same size for equal response everywhere.

I’m tired. I will edit this later.

Christine wrote:

The reason that I am pursuing this line of inquiry is that a while back I had a discussion about this topic with someone who is, if not the top QM physicist in the United States is at least in the top 5. He is employed in industry as opposed to being an academic (not that makes a difference.) He had never heard of EEStor or Zenn but he does know LM and MT. I told him what EEStor was trying to do and I conveyed to him accurately the energy density that was being claimed. I told him that according to a recent press release that EEStor claimed that they were operating deep within the paraelectric phase over the temperature range of –20 to 65 C. He immediately asked me what was the particle size that EEStor was using. I told him that the patent claimed a 0.67 micron particle and he said that was way to big and that the paraelectric phase could not exist over that temperature range in a particle larger than 10 nanometers. I have subsequently found at least two references that confirm this.

I told him about the comparative volumes of the paraelectric and ferroelectric phases and how they coated it with alumina and reacted it at high temperature to lock in the paraelectric phase and he agreed with the material science.

I asked him if he thought what EEStor was trying to do was possible and he said “oh yea.” Even though I have always maintained that it was more interesting to think that EEStor has done this thing and try to figure out how they did it, I have to say I was floored. I said “what?” “Yes the material that you are describing is called a multiferroic and it has only been described in the literature for the past 15 years. Specifically you are probably looking at simultaneous ferroelectricty and ferromagnatism.”

I have also have had indication from another source that there is a significant magnetic component to what EEStor is doing, therefore it is the multiferroic route that I am exploring. Please understand that this is not the same mechanism as IBLC.

I will not give out names but there are 3 other people who participate on this site who could verify this. As far as the financial concerns of many of the people read this site, I could care less. I am only interested in the science of this thing.

Verified. Christine has been speaking with me about her ideas and her conversations with industry QM expert for a while now. Thanks for posting more Christine. I was with you up until the pressure/magnetic domain preservation relationship. I guess I have more reading to do.

---

Christine wrote:

The reason that I am pursuing this line of inquiry is that a while back I had a discussion about this topic with someone who is, if not the top QM physicist in the United States is at least in the top 5. He is employed in industry as opposed to being an academic (not that makes a difference.) He had never heard of EEStor or Zenn but he does know LM and MT. I told him what EEStor was trying to do and I conveyed to him accurately the energy density that was being claimed. I told him that according to a recent press release that EEStor claimed that they were operating deep within the paraelectric phase over the temperature range of –20 to 65 C. He immediately asked me what was the particle size that EEStor was using. I told him that the patent claimed a 0.67 micron particle and he said that was way to big and that the paraelectric phase could not exist over that temperature range in a particle larger than 10 nanometers. I have subsequently found at least two references that confirm this.

I told him about the comparative volumes of the paraelectric and ferroelectric phases and how they coated it with alumina and reacted it at high temperature to lock in the paraelectric phase and he agreed with the material science.

I asked him if he thought what EEStor was trying to do was possible and he said “oh yea.” Even though I have always maintained that it was more interesting to think that EEStor has done this thing and try to figure out how they did it, I have to say I was floored. I said “what?” “Yes the material that you are describing is called a multiferroic and it has only been described in the literature for the past 15 years. Specifically you are probably looking at simultaneous ferroelectricty and ferromagnatism.”

Christine,

Thanks for the post. Any chance you can provide links to the references and/or journals that have been described? Especially those that might indicate the magnetic spin dramatically increasing the resistance of the Ti atom. And does your SME wish to remain anonymous, or is this professional courtesy? Thanks again.

Last edited Wed, 01 Jul 2009, 3:40am by mjtimber

---

mjtimber wrote:

Christine,

Thanks for the post. Any chance you can provide links to the references and/or journals that have been described? Especially those that might indicate the magnetic spin dramatically increasing the resistance of the Ti atom. And does your SME wish to remain anonymous, or is this professional courtesy? Thanks again.

This is where I am frustrated. I'm unable to find THE reference. Going back to basics, the energy stored in a capacitor relates directly to the amount of charge that builds up at the electrodes. Clearly, the charge density claimed by Eestor cannot be supported by the polarization of titanium alone. This has been well worked out by others on this blog. Can it be built up by another mechanism based on the generation of a magnetic field?

I'd like to see the references also (and then some numbers).

It is interesting to follow the debate between engineers and scientists that continues on this blog. This debate was the topic of another recent thread. Engineers create devices using well-worked out principles that have been applied before in predictable ways. A good engineer would have already calculated the tolerances of the device he is going to build before the process of building it has even started. Scientists work backward from what has been built (by man or nature) in order to describe the whys of a surprising phenonmenon. Engineers don't like surprises. Scientists feed off of them.

My guess is that Nelson/Weir first observed something special about a certain CMBT under certain conditions that was surprising to them (perhaps multiferroic properties??). Of couse, we now know tht Nelson was particularly equipped to recognize what that phenomenon may be. After that, it became an engineering project.

Last edited Wed, 01 Jul 2009, 7:35am by DAP

---

Christine

What a wonderful post. I hope (and think) you have identified the mechanism for pinning the Ti ion.

But I do have a question. Do we even need to consider the Ti movement induced magnetism? Or can we just sweep this away as a very minor magnetic contribution?

The reason for my hope is that this mechanism means that most of the issues in building an EESU are straight forward, though very difficult, Chemical Engineering problems. Once these ChE problems are solved, and they will be, the costs will shrink and the EESU will be everywhere.

---

zawy wrote:

Goooose4 wrote:

Can you imagine someone sending millions of $$ without getting an SME?

Zenn got something like $30 million in 3 stock offerings on the back of the EEStor dream after investing only $6.8 million in EEStor. They could not have done this if they had sent a qualified SME like John Miller there because he would have reported it's "beyond fantasy" and they would have been required to disclose this evaluation when offering new stock. Evaluating the technology was, and still is, a no-win situation for Zenn. Their new stock offering will again probably bring in more money than they pay to EEStor. What would they gain by discovering the technology is not there?

Keep in mind what John Miller reported, ie, that Dick Weir offers prospective investors a list of SME's who know enough to offer their opinion on the EEStor enterprise. One of those is John Miller himself. Miller thinks it's funny Weir would include his name as a reference but what it shows is Weir is not trying to keep prospective investors from looking at all sides, ie, "Go talk to Miller if you want to hear from someone who thinks it's impossible. Go talk to ________ if you want to hear from someone thinks it's not impossible. Go to talk to ________ if you want to hear from someone who thinks it's probable." ..referring of course to the manufacturability of an EESU.

This is not a simple dipole system.

---

Christine, you said you "conveyed to him accurately the energy density" they are claiming in one paragraph and then in the next paragraph concerning a different topic he said what it was possible. It's not clear what energy density you conveyed and if he was including energy density when he said it was possible. How many J/cc did you convey to him?

The magnetic effects do not change the need for a surface charge. We've shown all the electrons and protons of each molecule would have to move to opposite ends for this to occur (creating a cold and reversible plasma...which is clearly impossible).

Once the Ti+4 atoms stop moving, the minuscule magnetic field generated by that is gone. It's a nice size charge over a short distance, but the movement is too slow. The electric field itself changes the spins a lot more.

Please let us know if you find a reference that says any type of multiferroic can store more than one half of one percent of what EEStor claims. At that time it might be interesting to discuss them. If you find any capacitor-like material that can store more than 5% of what EEStor claims, then that would also be interesting and even useful for battery-boosting for acceleration in vehicles. So far no one has reported more than 2% or 3% of EEStor claims, and those are just theoretical calculations based on new laboratory experiments.

---

"We say that BaTiO3 is to a higher degree ironically bonded and Al2O3 is much more covalently bonded."

ionically?, FYI-for your editing Christine, Thanks for your contribution!

Does the mechanism of the EESU actually cram enough electrons into the material to be released to do work?

---

zawy wrote:

The magnetic effects do not change the need for a surface charge. We've shown all the electrons and protons of each molecule would have to move to opposite ends for this to occur (creating a cold and reversible plasma...which is clearly impossible).

Why? You may have shown that Ti movement in the absence of a magnetic field can't do it, but this is a novel mechanism that would stiffen the Ti response and potentially allow for the increased energy storage.

---

mjtimber wrote:

I was not defending Zawy in any way, obviously he's trying to get a rise. I was looking for facts on any of the three answerable items above.

mjtimber I was not trying to get a rise out of anyone, I was just posting my perspective of the situation. I'm truly sorry if my perspective is damaging to anyone's feelings.

If someone has an argument that shows Zenn would benefit from learning the EESU technology is not there, I would be glad to hear it. If they were able to prove the technology is there, they could allocate spending with more confidence, so I guess there is motivation to really know if it is real. But if they find out it is not there, they have to disclose it to investors and I believe that would not be good for Zenn's stock or new stock offerings.

EEnigma, I have no evidence that they have or have not sent an SME. Many here have speculated that they must have sent one, but I don't recall any information from Zenn that they have. What I am saying is that if I were top management in Zenn, I would not try to determine if the technology exists.

---