TheEEStory.com

Zawy,

Y_Po said that the theoretical max energy density on a simple dipole system is 250J/cc.

Are all capacitors based on simple dipole systems?

For the capacitors which are not based on simple dipole systems, what is the top theoretical energy density?

If capacitors require that the device storage mechanism be based on a simple dipole system with (250J/cc max ED), then maybe that is the wrong theoretical model to compare EEStor's technology to. Maybe it should be compared to batteries?

What are your thoughts?

---

To my knowledge all capacitors that follow 1/2CV^2 are going to be based on surface charge/dipoles.

y_po maybe using the number for max surface charge that he and nanocarbons came up with.

I can give you a max based on overly generous assumptions. For example say 10 valence electrons are being moved from some element and thereby creating a +10 ion - can such a thing even stably exist?. Now allow this theoretical wonderful element to be packed with his identical neighbors a very tight 2 angstroms between them, (10 e/4 ang^2 = 2.5 e/A^2) I get about 4 times less that EEStor, about 8,000 J/cc. Now, considering I used some kind of marvelous material that I expect no one to ever discover, I estimate the real value to be 2,000 J/cc. [note: edited to correct math error]

Since my knowledge is not as great as y_po's on this, I expect he has created a smaller box of possibilities, even if he didn't use nanocarbon's number, which is why he got 250 J/cc. Or rather his extra knowledge allows him to 100% trust nanocarbon's number. This means y_po lives in a reality that is 4 times smaller than my imagined world of possibilities and therefore he should have 4 times more energy to spend on profitable activity and therefore his net worth should be 4 times greater by the time he's 42, if he tries as hard as i did. I quit trying when I was 35 so he has only a few more years of work before he's a multimillionaire. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear this, but it doesn't apply if he keeps posting here because it means he's not trying as hard as I did. My factor of 4 is not that far off because knowing where energy is (and isn't) is identical to knowing where money is (and isn't). Of course what I'm saying is all that true, but why not have a little fun.

Last edited Fri, 03 Jul 2009, 10:10am by zawy

---

Zawy,
Did you ever consider this thought ?
http://www.theeestory.com/posts/31022

Basic wrote:

...
Assume for a moment that the ions moves so close each others that their fields do cancel each others, in pairs.
What would be left ?

The opposite charges cancel and you end up with twice the distance for the new dipole, but now you have only 1 dipole instead of two. They are now too far apart to be attracting to each other and their "host" molecules no longer want or need the extra charge. So the charges "fly" all the way across the particle, probably releasing all the stored energy as heat (i.e. photons).

Even if this last sentence is not correct, the long dipole reduces the electric field internal to it so that 1/2CV^2 does not apply to any new dipoles that are created inside the first dipole. Even if it's a small 0.1 electron charge per cell in the first layer, I get a voltage reduction of 11,200 V/micron internal to the first layer, completely canceling the 350 V/micron being applied. So no more voltage is available for more dipoles to occur on the inside.

If 50 e per cell could sit in the first layer, they would have it. But a +50 ion in a 4x4 ang space is not reasonable, violating pauli exclusion and repulsing each other beyond any physical constraints. Definitely breakdown again, charges flying everywhere.

Last edited Wed, 01 Jul 2009, 10:20pm by zawy

---

zawy wrote:

To my knowledge all capacitors that follow 1/2CV^2 are going to be based on surface charge/dipoles.

y_po maybe using the number for max surface charge that he and nanocarbons came up with.

I can give you a max based on overly generous assumptions. For example say 10 valence electrons are being moved from some element and thereby creating a +10 ion - can such a thing even stably exist?. Now allow this theoretical wonderful element to be packed with his identical neighbors a very tight 2 angstroms between them, (10 e/4 ang^2 = 2.5 e/A^2) I get about 4 times less that EEStor, about 4,000 J/cc. Now, considering I used some kind of marvelous material that I expect no one to ever discover, I estimate the real value to be 1,000 J/cc.

Since my knowledge is not as great as y_po's on this, I expect he has created a smaller box of possibilities, even if he didn't use nanocarbon's number, which is why he got 250 J/cc. Or rather his extra knowledge allows him to 100% trust nanocarbon's number. This means y_po lives in a reality that is 4 times smaller than my imagined world of possibilities and therefore he should have 4 times more energy to spend on profitable activity and therefore his net worth should be 4 times greater by the time he's 42, if he tries as hard as i did. I quit trying when I was 35 so he has only a few more years of work before he's a multimillionaire. I'm sure he'll be glad to hear this, but it doesn't apply if he keeps posting here because it means he's not trying as hard as I did. My factor of 4 is not that far off because knowing where energy is (and isn't) is identical to knowing where money is (and isn't). Of course what I'm saying is all that true, but why not have a little fun.

I guess I'm trying to understand the various assumptions which constitute yours, y_po's and eetom's theoretical energy density boxes.

If Lithium ion already achieves 900J/cc, I dont understand why there is a need to imagine a "marvelous" material to achieve 1000J/cc. Can you help me with that?

How does this 900J/cc square with the various reports of increased Li density in labs?

---

eestorblog wrote:

I guess I'm trying to understand the various assumptions which constitute yours, y_po's and eetom's theoretical energy density boxes.


If Lithium ion already achieves 900J/cc, I dont understand why there is a need to imagine a "marvelous" material to achieve 1000J/cc. Can you help me with that?

How does this 900J/cc square with the various reports of increased Li density in labs?

Are you comparing batteries to capacitors? Because there is a big difference there: one is breaking bonds while the other, based on past technology, is simply pushing the atom a little bit, a bend but don't break approach. Breaking will always take more force. It's as though you're comparing energy density between burning coal and reacting plutonium. Completely different mechanisms, with completely different energy densities.

---

eestorblog wrote:

zawy wrote:

...

I guess I'm trying to understand the various assumptions which constitute yours, y_po's and eetom's theoretical energy density boxes.

If Lithium ion already achieves 900J/cc, I dont understand why there is a need to imagine a "marvelous" material to achieve 1000J/cc. Can you help me with that?

How does this 900J/cc square with the various reports of increased Li density in labs?

Got to save this post :)

---

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

Got to save this post :)

Agreed. A bit shocking to me after leaving for some time.

---

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

zawy wrote:

...

I guess I'm trying to understand the various assumptions which constitute yours, y_po's and eetom's theoretical energy density boxes.

If Lithium ion already achieves 900J/cc, I dont understand why there is a need to imagine a "marvelous" material to achieve 1000J/cc. Can you help me with that?

How does this 900J/cc square with the various reports of increased Li density in labs?

Got to save this post :)

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

---

obviously there is much higher energy density in gasoline oxidation. a battery has the ability to "burn" and "unburn" a fuel, when discharging/recharging. while a simple dipole mechanism may not achieve the ED of the eesu, we do not know the mechanism for energy storage used by the eesu. eestor remarks indicate a possible hybrid between capacitors and batteries, but that could be deliberately misleading also.

athEEists will just have to wait with the rest of us to find out the "secret". mwahahahahhahaahhahahahaahahaha.

---

eestorblog wrote:

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

zawy wrote:

...

...

...

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

"Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries."

ee-tom mentions about Ducharme on --> http://theeestory.com/posts/25454

Yes - but this material is not BT. From his pages:
"ultrathin ferroelectric films of polyvinylidene fluoride copolymers, crystalline polymers similar to Teflon"

If he gets them to work and at sensible cost it will be very exciting - but so far these are two big ifs.

And nothing to do with eestor.

Tom

---

zawy, is your calculation of the energy stored by movement of the Ti based on a separation of charges, ie it takes x energy to separate the Ti+4 y distance from 4 electrons? Are any other factors taken into account?

---

eestorblog wrote:

It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Any means whatsoever?

How about matter-antimatter annihilation? The famous E=mc^2. Here you have it: around 10^13 Wh/kg!
Of course, a few "engineering" problems remain to be solved :)

Ares wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Any means whatsoever?

How about matter-antimatter annihilation? The famous E=mc^2. Here you have it: around 10^13 Wh/kg!
Of course, a few "engineering" problems remain to be solved :)

I guess I would be able to drive to a distant galaxy and back.

---

eestorblog wrote:

Zawy,

Y_Po said that the theoretical max energy density on a simple dipole system is 250J/cc.

Are all capacitors based on simple dipole systems?

For the capacitors which are not based on simple dipole systems, what is the top theoretical energy density?

If capacitors require that the device storage mechanism be based on a simple dipole system with (250J/cc max ED), then maybe that is the wrong theoretical model to compare EEStor's technology to. Maybe it should be compared to batteries?

What are your thoughts?

250J/cc sounds about right for a purely electrostatic capacitor using a simple (intrinsic) dipole mechanism. That's theoretical - probably won't get near that in practice.

All "purely electrostatic" capacitors are based on simple dipole systems, I think.

The other types would be electrolytic/Dual-Layer. I'm not sure about the max ED for these.

I'm not sure it should be compared to batteries, since electrolytic/DL already have an electrochemical aspect to them. I think what is implied by your question is that we need to find a dipole mechanism that isn't bound to unit-cell dimensions but also provides a high optimum "equivalent" permittivity. I believe that was the implication in the SME quote that you're drawing your question from.

---

eestorblog wrote:

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

So has anyone actually asked Ducharme what mechanism he anticipates will store the energy? I'm assuming that if he anticipates it, he knows how it will happen. If no one has, I'll take it upon myself.

---

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

zawy wrote:

...

...

...

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

"Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries."

ee-tom mentions about Ducharme on --> http://theeestory.com/posts/25454

Yes - but this material is not BT. From his pages:
"ultrathin ferroelectric films of polyvinylidene fluoride copolymers, crystalline polymers similar to Teflon"

If he gets them to work and at sensible cost it will be very exciting - but so far these are two big ifs.

And nothing to do with eestor.

Tom

SB3K, Ducharme's comments still refer to a purely electrostatic capacitor that is bound to the 1/2*CV^2 equation. I believe b's question was in relation to prevailing assumptions about max energy density with respect to current understanding about "standard" dipoles in general, not about BaTiO3 specifically.

---

Ares wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Any means whatsoever?

How about matter-antimatter annihilation? The famous E=mc^2. Here you have it: around 10^13 Wh/kg!
Of course, a few "engineering" problems remain to be solved :)

I think I've now sussed out a rationale that can be used to obtain max energy density in any medium using any existing or future unknown energy storage mechanism regardless of technique, excluding weird quantum effects/nuclear energies. :)

It's deceptively simple and material independent. I've got to think about it a bit more to ensure it's all-inclusive before I commit to it. Suffice it to say that it's related to nuclear limits. :) Go figure.

---

I think I've now sussed out a rationale that can be used to obtain max energy density in any medium using any existing or future unknown energy storage mechanism regardless of technique, excluding weird quantum effects/nuclear energies. :)

It's deceptively simple and material independent. I've got to think about it a bit more to ensure it's all-inclusive before I commit to it. Suffice it to say that it's related to nuclear limits. :) Go figure.

That would be in line with the Weir statements about it being a head slapper upon being told how it is done as well as some of the patent changes.

mjtimber wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

So has anyone actually asked Ducharme what mechanism he anticipates will store the energy? I'm assuming that if he anticipates it, he knows how it will happen. If no one has, I'll take it upon myself.

Extraordinarily high breakdown fields, I think - due to unusual properties in this regard wrt very thin, very pure dielectric films. IIRC.

---

Zawy, with reference to your answer:
http://www.theeestory.com/posts/38413
I would invite you to rethink about all you said. I see many conceptual mistakes in it (or perhaps it's me to mistake).
Just three hints:
1-when I say "charges cancel out each others" you don't have to think about annihilation, just think about those charges lying on the same geometrical plane parallel to the electrode plates;
2-The purpose of a dielectric is not to store energy, but rather to counteract the electric field which the charges in the plates try to build up, thus lowering the voltage across them. So all we need to find, is a phisically possible way to build such a electric field counteraction.
3-When dealing with surface charges, field is linear with distance and you can use the overlap effects principle to do your math.

Daniel, about the work of Ducharme and al, there is one thing which I believe it's been widely overlooked here:
the "interface exchange coupling" effect.
This is NOT IBLC, indeed it is a phenomena that, according to them, modifies the electrical behaviour at the interface between the high permittivity grain and the low permittivity/high breakdown coating; the results is (if I well understood) a high permittivity AND high breakdown layer.
The thickness of such "interface exchange coupling" layer is, according to the paper, in the tens of nanometers if I remember well.
The interface exchange mechanism seems to be the reason why Ducharme believes extremely high ED could be achieved.

Last edited Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 5:53am by Basic

More details on interface exchange coupling effect:
http://mfml.me.washington.edu/Contents/Paper_Li...
(to me, this was an extremely interesting and relevant reading)

Basic wrote:

Daniel, about the work of Ducharme and al, there is one thing which I believe it's been widely overlooked here:
the "interface exchange" effect.
This is NOT IBLC, indeed it is a phenomena that, according to them, modifies the electrical behaviour at the interface between the high permittivity grain and the low permittivity/high breakdown coating; the results is (if I well understood) a high permittivity AND high breakdown layer.
The thickness of such "interface exchange" layer is, according to the paper, some tens of nanometers if I remember well.
The interface exchange mechanism seems to be the reason why Ducharme believes extremely high ED could be achieved.

Thanks for that, Basic. Yeah, I remember quickly going over it way back. It doesn't seem to me that EEStor's composite dielectric morphology is particularly suited to take advantage of this effect, but you never know. Have you worked out a ball-park energy density value for EEStor's dielectric based on Ducharme's work?

---

Daniel, if you read the paper I referenced above, you will find interesting results that might lead to reconsider the grain/coating sizes ratio for the interface exchange coupling effect (IEC) to be relevant.
No, I didn't try to figure out what the energy density could be, simply because I don't have found yet documents describing IEC in a quantiative way.
However I started putting together this piece of the puzzle with the one I reminded to Zawy in this same thread (http://www.theeestory.com/posts/31022).
Both are actually months old (just browse my posts and you will find several references to both points), I simply hoped that people more clever and less lazy than me were exploring the path...

Basic wrote:

More details on interface exchange coupling effect:
http://mfml.me.washington.edu/Contents/Paper_Li...
(to me, this was an extremely interesting and relevant reading)

Thanks, Basic.

"The equation relating exchange constant to the microscopic lattice properties in cubic ionic crystals was later derived by Askar et al using long-wave approximation. Furthermore, polarization gradients were observed in both atomic simulation of ferroelectric superlattices and structural characterization of ferroelectric domain walls."

Interesting...

---

eestorblog wrote:

spaceballs_3000 wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

zawy wrote:

...

I guess I'm trying to understand the various assumptions which constitute yours, y_po's and eetom's theoretical energy density boxes.

If Lithium ion already achieves 900J/cc, I dont understand why there is a need to imagine a "marvelous" material to achieve 1000J/cc. Can you help me with that?

How does this 900J/cc square with the various reports of increased Li density in labs?

Got to save this post :)

Why? I'm simply trying to establish what are the fundamental assumptions of the skeptical position. Is the box bounded by known capacitor technology? Does it stretch into the definition of what a battery is, etc? It's an interesting question since it has the potential to reveal what some people think is physically possible by any means whatsoever...in other words, energy storage will never achieve more than XJ/cc or Ywh/kg no matter what chemistry or architecture.

Ducharme thinks capacitors will achieve energy densities greater than batteries. Is he operating under the same 250J/cc boundary ee-tom and yPo envision? A different one?

People in general and scientists in particular aren't used to examining their fundamental assumptions. They think everything is a conclusion from some observation or test result. That's actually not the case.

b,

This is from Ducharmes paper. The claim other so called experts of maximum 250 J/cc is not what Ducharme is saying at all. Some here are sticking to that misconception because they are wrong and they know it.

These nm-thick films, even with a low dielectric constant of only κ ≈ 8, have achieved record high energy density of over 400 Joules per cubic centimeter. A multilayer capacitor made from these films this could revolutionize portable power.

Have achieved means been there done that.....next.
b, you and I know who is wrong and who's calculations are falsified or just incorrect. How they can still say Ducharme claims 250J/cc along with them is mind boggeling.

Ever read Dante's Inferno? The term "Falsifier" comes to mind. Who's the idiot now?

Last edited Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 12:22pm by Eenigma

---

Eenigma wrote:

These nm-thick films, even with a low dielectric constant of only κ ≈ 8, have achieved record high energy density of over 400 Joules per cubic centimeter. A multilayer capacitor made from these films this could revolutionize portable power.

Ducharme's not using a ceramic capacitor. It's a mixture of battery and capacitor. Usually these can't be cycled many times, but this one looks like an exception. Y_po has always said Ducharme's methods would be the next step in capacitors, not EEStor's, and many people have posted various methods of achieving around 400 J/cc but they are not related to EEStor's claims. This is as high as I can recall someone finding, but it's still 58 times less energy than EEStor's claims. 1.7% of the way. Notice the low permittivity value, another thing y_po has always said is necessary to store a lot of energy. A problem is that the low k value requires 10 times more voltage/micron than EEStor. If 3,500 V is some kind of practical limit for complex engineering reasons, then they can make them 10 times thinner, 1 micron. But then you have problems with the alternating plates taking up half your volume. Requires some REAL nanotechnology to get maximum benefit. Even sub-nano precision.

Last edited Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 1:26pm by zawy

---

"Ducharme's not using a ceramic capacitor. It's a mixture of battery and capacitor. It can't cycle as many times as EEStor's theoretical capacitor".
No Zawy, this is completely wrong. Ducharme's et al paper is all about electrostatic capacitors, not electrochemical sort of battery/capacitor.
Re-read it (there are more documents, but they are basically restating the same things):
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...

You're right basic, that's different than the other paper's I've seen. I suspect there are some bond energy changes going on so that in a sense maybe y_po and nanocarbons aren't wrong on their surface charge limits (i.e., i suspect it's not a simple dipole method). I would expect plastics to be more amenable to bond energy changes. But even if it is a bond energy change, it seems that we might be into semantics in trying to seperate it from a straight dipoles method. If it follows 1/2CV^2 and k does not change with V, then I'll agree it's a simple dipole method. His comments indicate that it does. At least my estimated limit of 1,000 J/cc was not exceeded. Here's the whole paper:
http://people.gl.ciw.edu/cohen/meetings/ferro20...

I had looked over those papers before, but I guess I missed the importance of this one (that it may not be bond changes).

edit: it does seem to a true capacitor in the sense that bonds are stretched but not broken. This sentence makes it sound like they are really pulling the dipoles apart to the fullest extent without bond changes: "approaching the ionization potential of the valence electrons!"

This is great, fantastic stuff, but still only a small percentage of EEStor's claims.

Last edited Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 1:55pm by zawy

---