TheEEStory.com

I didn't notice that. I mean, y_po's comments on low k was not rigid, but just usually phrase as what people "usually do" when working with BT.

It looks like someone might someday exceed my estimated "soft" limit of 1,000 J/c, but never can they reach my stated hard limit of 4,000 J/cc since you can only get so many atoms in a volume.

This stuff is a lot lighter than BT, so talking in terms of J/gram instead of J/cc is important. At 400 J/cc they could conceivably do as good as 15% of EEStor's completed unit on a J/gram basis. That would be good enough to use in cars, but lithium will probably stay way ahead. It's great stuff, but batteries or other bond changes are the only way to get the energy needed.

I am skeptical of high permittivity grains helping energy density. If they go any higher, they're ionizing the bonds, and any grains used are occupying volume. What kind of grains is he going to use that has better energy density that this stuff? Especially on a J/gram basis.

Please show me where he said grains are going to improve this.

---

zawy wrote:

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.

Zawy, I take the time to read the papers I quote from and I don't shoot from hip.

400 J/CC

Zawy wrote: "Ducharme's not using a ceramic capacitor. It's a mixture of battery and capacitor. Usually these can't be cycled many times".

(wrong Zawy)

This is how I see it, you saw something didn't fall completely in step with your agenda and shot from the hip.
Basic comes along and says........no Zawy......enigma is right and you relent.

Try and give some of us less skeptical types the benifit of correctness before you stomp our posts with false data. Your post was clearly wrong but I still find myself wanting to give you the benefit of correctness in future posts.........Why can't you do the same?
Your foul mouthed named calling buddy Y_PO is also wrong when he said himself, EE Tom and Dr. Ducharme all agree 250 J/cc is the agreed upon best case scenario. He's is 100% marginalized and useless.

Zawy, I did read your at 1,000J/CC max and you are correct to date as far as I can tell. I believe that number will soon fall but that in itself does not make you wrong.

At least when you were faced undeniable facts you relented (although it took 2 of us myself and Basic).
For that reason you are not 100% marginalized by me anyway. You sure seem to push an agenda however.

---

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)

WOW, does this paper explain why the field does not concentrate in the alumina layer? Is this another piece of the puzzle?

Eenigma wrote:

Zawy, I take the time to read the papers I quote from and I don't shoot from hip.

(wrong Zawy)

...step with your agenda and shot from the hip.

....no Zawy.....

Try and give some of us ...

... before you stomp our posts with false data.

Your post was clearly wrong but ....

.........Why can't you do the same?

Your foul mouthed named calling buddy Y_PO is also wrong..

He's is 100% marginalized and useless.

..you are not 100% marginalized by me anyway.

You sure seem to push an agenda however.

Eenigma, I'm sorry my initial statement that it was partly a battery offends you so much. Maybe someday you will be able to find peace.

---

zawy wrote:

Eenigma wrote:

Zawy, I take the time to read the papers I quote from and I don't shoot from hip.

(wrong Zawy)

...step with your agenda and shot from the hip.

....no Zawy.....

Try and give some of us ...

... before you stomp our posts with false data.

Your post was clearly wrong but ....

.........Why can't you do the same?

Your foul mouthed named calling buddy Y_PO is also wrong..

He's is 100% marginalized and useless.

..you are not 100% marginalized by me anyway.

You sure seem to push an agenda however.

Eenigma, I'm sorry my initial statement that it was partly a battery offends you so much. Maybe someday you will be able to find peace.

LOL

---

eestorblog wrote:

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?

B, I meant "marvelous material" in the sense that we have not seen any BT-like material above 50 J/cc. I'm still in shock from seeing a 400 J/cc material that doesn't include messy stuff like nanotubes dangling in a liquid electrolyte, which would have limited cycles. I also thought the high-k particles immersed in a "plastic" to get high energy from surface effects on the particles was also ugly if not fundamentally unsound since the energy is not stored in the particles which are taking up volume and adding weight. Probably neither of these are simple dipoles either. I say "probably" because I don't want eenigma to get all upset in case Basic finds out the high-k particle method really is a simple dipole method.

If Ducharme can get this 400 J/cc packaged where the electrodes aren't taking up half the volume, then he has something great, although he mentions disadvantages with temperature and mechanical (vibration?). It needs to be less than 15 nm thick to get the intrinsic coercive field, but I can't tell from the paper if this kills energy density. If it does, then electrode volume is going to be a huge problem, requiring extreme nanotechnology. He has only 4 J/cc if his electrodes are the same size as EEStor's.

Getting back to your questions, it hasn't been sinking in on me that lithium is adequate and that a completed unit is only 900 J/cc. They are 500 J/gram, the more useful units. If nanotechnology can fully utilize this discovery, it's a great thing, and 500 J/gram seems possible.

I should point out that y_po has previously said 700 J/cc for just EEStor technology when he was "very generous". If you extend that to ANY material, you might get him to say an even higher number.

zawy: y_po, where did you learn about the surface charge limit
Y_Po: I studied physics in university
zawy: why can't you move more than 0.1 e /A^2 to the surface of a crystal?
Y_Po: because cell is >10A^2 and ion charge is around 1-2 e max
zawy: then why not 0.2 e/A^2?
zawy: i would like a theoretical limit to present to people
y_po: zawy what is titanium ion charge?
zawy: +4
Y_Po: no. what is it in the crystal?
zawy: +4 is all i can remember seeing
Y_Po: It is in idealized model. But OK
Y_po: then it is 4/16 e/A^2
zawy: that's 700 J/cc
Y_po: Yes, it is very generous limit

---

Looking back over y_po's comments concerning 250 J/cc, I find that he stated this was for EEStor's voltage of 350 V/micron. Ducharme is using 8.6 times this much, so y_po was not wrong.

---

Nanocarbons had stated 0.025 e/A^2 was max surface charge for any material which gives only 70 J/cc. This has been proven wrong. Y_po's off-hand estimation in the early days for a max surface charge was 0.1 e/A^2 for any capacitor. Technically, 0.1 is 0.05 to 1.499 which is 140 J/cc to 420 J/cc. So I can't find any statement from y_po concerning energy density that has been disproven, even his paper-napkin estimation, which seems to have been very accurate.

I think I found a way to distinguish a capacitor from a battery: don't electrons flow out of a battery's "dielectric"? So I believe the definition of a capacitor would be that electrons do not leave the dielectric. As a result of this max surface charge would impose a limit on energy density. So Christine's magentism does not increase energy density of a capacitor unless it can increase surface charge. Likewise for a battery, I don't know how magnetism will allow more electrons to leave. I can only see that it will lower permittivity, which is usually needed to increase energy density, within the limit of surface charge.

Last edited Fri, 03 Jul 2009, 11:34am by zawy

---

Can magnetism put a force on the electrons requiring more energy to move them?

---

actual energy stored is in the form of electrons piled up in the electrodes. The surface charge mechanism is dielectric polarization. Electron mobility out of the dielectric is called leakage. Polarization of the dielectric in the presence of a field leads to durable electron/hole pileup in the electrodes.

So now which came first, electrode field or the dielectric polarization? The electrode field, of course. The requirement of the dielectric is not to provide enough charge displacement in itself, but rather to give the appearance of charge displacement to the electrode as uniformly as possible.

There is a limit to the electronic polarization of para phase CMBT. The problem you guys are having is there is a missing property you are not accounting for. Nothing I say to any of you will mean as much as watching the 30 minute lecture.

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/motterials_c0...

---

e'er wrote:

Can magnetism put a force on the electrons requiring more energy to move them?

That's what we are asking Christine to show us. She says there are supporting documents for this theory.

---

MJ, I don't really know, but I do know that there are a whole lot of researchers looking into it.

---

If there are, there should be a paper trail. Haven't found any yet that show this as a mechanism for energy storage, other than the anonymous SME Christine posted. I'm interested.

---

That's what we are asking Christine to show us. She says there are supporting documents for this theory.

Again...attend the lecture.

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/motterials_c0...

---

e'er wrote:

Can magnetism put a force on the electrons requiring more energy to move them?

Only while they are moving.

A magnetic field exerts a force on a moving charge and the force increases with speed. So a slowing moving charge sees little effect.

What you have described is a frictional effect, not an energy storage one.

Robert

Would it require more energy to move an electron against a magnetic field? I'm assuming yes. But, what happens to that extra energy required? Turns to heat or some other wave and dissipates?

---

e'er wrote:

Would it require more energy to move an electron against a magnetic field? I'm assuming yes.

That's correct. The magnetic field imposes a force at right angles to the direction of travel, the charge "wants" to curve rather than travel in a straight line. The force though can be made arbitrarily small by moving arbitrarily slowly. Rather like air resistance.

e'er wrote:

But, what happens to that extra energy required? Turns to heat or some other wave and dissipates?

Yes. It affects movement in all directions.

Robert

So, what happens to that energy? Was your yes at the start of your second answer saying that it turns to heat?

I'm just trying to figure out what effect having electrets embedded in the PET would have on this material.

---

e'er wrote:

So, what happens to that energy? Was your yes at the start of your second answer saying that it turns to heat?

The energy get dissipated as heat or some other radiation. You're accelerating an electron so radiation of some form will be emitted.

e'er wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out what effect having electrets embedded in the PET would have on this material.

Electrets aren't magnetic.

Robert

where's the free electron come from in the dielectric?

---

EEventually wrote:

where's the free electron come from in the dielectric?

If you meant "electrolyte" instead of "dielectric" for a batttery, it's coming from a chemical reaction. If you're talking about a capacitor, there's no free electron leaving the dielectric: it just builds up as a surface charge on the dielectric.

Y_po or ee-tom could grade me from an A to F on the following explanation for batteries. Large bond changes release (or store) the energy as photons that travel into or out of the plates, jumping along (absorbed and released) slowly moving electrons, which move at only something like 1 inch per second whereas the energy being carried by the photons to the load on the battery move at close to the speed of light. The relationship between the electrons and photons would be Watts in photons/second = Amps in charges/second * Volts. So low voltage in batteries would have a lot more electron movement. For capacitors, few electrons can move to the surface of the dielectric, so you have to have a really high voltage to get any energy out. I don't know what wavelength the photons are but E=h*f would apply over some range. The energy released when an electron is absorbed or released by a chemical bond is the energy of the photons released or absorbed.

Last edited Fri, 03 Jul 2009, 10:52pm by zawy

---

Robert wrote:

e'er wrote:

So, what happens to that energy? Was your yes at the start of your second answer saying that it turns to heat?

The energy get dissipated as heat or some other radiation. You're accelerating an electron so radiation of some form will be emitted.

e'er wrote:

I'm just trying to figure out what effect having electrets embedded in the PET would have on this material.

Electrets aren't magnetic.

Robert

Alright. But, they are electrostatic, which would have an effect on electrons, if I'm not mistaken. From the Wiki, "An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet." They can be charged in a specific way that would put resistance towards a specific directional movement of electrons. Plus, it sounds like they are created in a similar fashion to how an EESU is described in the patent.

And

"When charge carriers are accelerated (as opposed to moving at constant velocity), a fluctuating magnetic field is produced. This gives rise to a fluctuating electric field, which in turn produces another varying magnetic field. The result is a "leapfrog" effect, in which both fields can propagate over vast distances through space. Such a synergistic field is known as an electromagnetic field, and is the phenomenon that makes wireless communications, broadcasting, and control systems possible."

I'm not saying this is the answer, but it sure seems like, as I have said before, that there are many different affects occurring here that cannot be evaluated by simply discussing dipoles. Crystals produce light, electromagnetism, sound waves, electron movement, shape phases and some other affects that I'm sure I am missing. While most of you science guys probably know 50 times more about the subject than I do, I still don't believe you know enough to state with certainty that it is impossible for EEStor to do what they claim that they have already done. There is simply too much going on here and too many possible material compositions for anyone to say with absolute certainty that it can't be done.

---

e'er wrote:

... While most of you science guys probably know 50 times more about the subject than I do, I still don't believe you know enough to state with certainty that it is impossible for EEStor to do what they claim that they have already done. ...

True science guys always keep the possibility open, just the odds are very unlikely.

This is why you should run along let the big boys discuss things now.

---

e'er wrote:

Alright. But, they are electrostatic, which would have an effect on electrons, if I'm not mistaken. From the Wiki, "An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet." They can be charged in a specific way that would put resistance towards a specific directional movement of electrons. Plus, it sounds like they are created in a similar fashion to how an EESU is described in the patent.

I don't see a permanent electric field adding significantly to the energy storage possibility.

I would expect such a material might show a large hysteresis actually.

e'er wrote:

"When charge carriers are accelerated (as opposed to moving at constant velocity), a fluctuating magnetic field is produced. This gives rise to a fluctuating electric field, which in turn produces another varying magnetic field. The result is a "leapfrog" effect, in which both fields can propagate over vast distances through space. Such a synergistic field is known as an electromagnetic field, and is the phenomenon that makes wireless communications, broadcasting, and control systems possible."

Otherwise known as light waves, radio waves etc (depending on frequency). This is the operating principle of light sources based on synchrotrons.

e'er wrote:

I'm not saying this is the answer, but it sure seems like, as I have said before, that there are many different affects occurring here that cannot be evaluated by simply discussing dipoles.

They just don't store energy in a recoverable fashion (or at all).

Robert

Thank you, Robert. I'm not saying they store energy, but I think they affect what does store energy. I'm not sure I agree with you about hysteresis. I seem to remember reading just the opposite, but I have to go to a party now and can't search for it.

SB3000 wrote:

"True science guys always keep the possibility open, just the odds are very unlikely."

SB3000, using your above statement, would you please give me a list of the supposed science guys on this board that are not "true science guys"?

Big Boys. LMAO!

---

e'er wrote:

... While most of you science guys probably know 50 times more about the subject than I do, I still don't believe you ...

Why discuss it, as you showed your view on the mater.

---

Oh, I see what you did there. That's funny. You burned me good. Remind again why exactly you are in this thread?

---