Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Richard Weir on EEStor's announcement

Cleantech has acquired some comments from Richard Weir on yesterday's announcement:


here's the link.

thanks mrjerry

52 comments:

stampergl said...

First!!

I am troubled by the fact that the press release touts TRI as the third party, but that the scientist in question, according to another post on this blog, seems to distance himself from TRI.

OntarioInvestor said...

just want to put this in to be emailed the comments.

Tom Villars said...

Favorite line.

"It's all certified," said Weir. "No bullshit in this."

richterm said...

Excellent Mr Weir. If you're reading this, thank you. This kind of thing warms my heart.

Cut to the chase. No bullshit, it's going to work as we said in our specs. Nice.

Raki said...

"When asked for an update on that schedule, Weir said, "Good things should happen in a reasonable period of time."

Mr. Weir, What is
"reasonable period of time"? You claimed you had an operational prototype EESU in March of 2006
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/3/29/1849708.html
If you had an operational EESU in 2006 as you claimed, why is it no one has seen or driven a ZENN with your EESU?

ApplewoodCourt said...

No BS! Really?

When asked for an update on that schedule, Weir said, ?"Good things should happen in a reasonable period of time."

That line is nothing but BS! Yes, good things >should< happen in a reasonable period time. That statement is even more empty and meaningless than the press release.

I once attended a lecture series where someone came in and talked about making cleverly worded statements, without actually lying.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing definite in his statement. "Monkeys should be contained by their cages". Nothing wrong about that statement ... it is a truthful statement ... "but all of the monkeys escaped" ... yes, but I said "monkeys should be contained by their cages" - I didn't say they "were" contained by their cages ...

"Good things should happen in a reasonable amount of time" - a truthful statement, it does not imply that they will, it does not even hint that there is even hope that "good things" implies anything about Eestor - one of Weir's kids may be getting married soon ... that is a "good thing" and it may happen in a "reasonable amount of time" - this is nothing but BS spin!

Y_Po said...

Wow, after two years he finally used word "saturation" in his speech.
I am glad they finally admitted they don't have but "will have" sometime in the future

mrjerry said...

Raki

It's about the "powder", you can't manufacture at billion nano clean, the prototype makes a nice museum piece. If you want prototypes, see the wipo patent. It's the same ones they showed Zenn/KP/Lockheed during the dd phase.

steve said...

They've done it. It's a done deal.
They announced the "polarization" milestone was achieved.

They've got permittivity.

"no bullshit"

Ha! Weir rocks. He's a genius.

Y_Po said...

BTW, Mr Weir used word "polarization", apparently he does in fact read this blog, and most likely read estimates I and other EE made on upper limit for energy density. I am glad he finally get some knowledge about subject.

Marcus said...

Y_Po, did you see zawy's thoughts on an enhanced manufacturing polarization due to the PET and particle size. Would such an enhanced polarization have any effect on dielectric saturation?

steve said...

Oh boy, there is sure is some anger from the "short" sighted of this blog.

Tough times for some, I guess. Picking the wrong team sux!

Y_Po said...


Y_Po, did you see zawy's thoughts on an enhanced manufacturing polarization due to the PET and particle size. Would such an enhanced polarization have any effect on dielectric saturation?

I think I did, and I answered it. No, it will have no real effect on saturation and it does not even have any real effect on k itself.

richterm said...

"It'll meet the voltage, we say that, it'll meet the polarization, saturation, we say that."

That's the part a I cared about and was referring to. That's pretty definitive. It's not some word game. He reaffirmed that they plan to meet the specs they've been talking about all along, and won't be delivering a watered down product.

As for evading the production schedule question - what do you expect? He didn't clearly didn't want to answer that question. You shouldn't have needed a lecture series to figure that out.

The press release was about reaching a milestone, and what that means for creating the production line. He wanted to keep it to that and not talk dates. As much as we'd all like all the questions answered right now, you can't always get what you want.

Y_Po said...


That's the part a I cared about and was referring to. That's pretty definitive. It's not some word game. He reaffirmed that they plan to meet the specs they've been talking about all along

They have not been talking about it all along. It is critics were talking about it all along. It is the first time the mentioned words "saturation" or "polarization". My guess the read this blog :)

zawy said...

OK, i took your suggestion and emailed EEStor about how they can have an AlO3 coating without ruining the permittivity.

zawy said...

y_po, i never did really get an upper limit for energy density that i trust. At the atomic level, I am not sure the permittivity of 18,000 applies internally to each cubic crystal. That is the basis of our methods. But I would like to see your calculation with numbers. Energy storage in BT is really complicated. There are several stages: electron spin (no electron movement), piezo effect, ferroelectric, and paraelectric, all in the order of increasing voltage. Then temp and transition shapes come into effect. So our model of simply moving charges a distance under a constant internal k may not be correct.

You said polarization had no effect on k. But when making BT materials, polarization of the BT by applying a super-strong electric field is very important to raising k. I believe they usually do it while the material is still hot. BT lined up in just any direction will not have the same benefit as when it is lined up correctly.

Y_Po said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zawy said...

Y_po, why must the dielectric have a surface charge? I understand that the aluminum plates have to have charge but i do not know what the max charge a metal can have. But the dielectric can change spin, have a piezo effect, and move the interior titanium or zirconium atom, all of which do not cause any surface charge.

Y_Po said...

zawy,
nothing you said matter,
There is maximum surface charge that high-K dielectric can have (due to polarization). It is of fraction of 1e per square angstrem.
k itself does not matter when you calculate the limit. It only depends on surface charge and break-down voltage E=U*Q/2. Using their numbers it is about 250 J/cc, which is not such a bad limit but it is 40 times less than what they promised.

Y_Po said...


Y_po, why must the dielectric have a surface charge?

Because that is what dielectrics do when they are placed in electric field.

zawy said...

I thought the length of bonds are the primary method that energy is stored in BT materials, not movement of electrons. A change in the electron orbital energy states can store energy without created any charge anywhere. You believe a reverse-voltage polarization must be created in the dielectric, but does it? For example, let's say you pull oppositely charge ions in the lattice further from each other with an external field. They store energy. But by being further apart, the reverse electric field between them is actually weaker, not stronger. But if electrons move, then your reverse polarization applies. But the general term "polarization" could apply to ions being pulled apart without because the dipole is larger, but has a weaker volt/um between them.

Y_Po said...

zawy,
you really need to refresh your memory about dielectrics.

zawy said...

y_po, i think you're using a model of how dielectrics work that is much too simple. After 50 years, they still do not understand everything about how BT works. Any simple model will fail.

I had four "buts" in a row in my last post which made it hard to understand. My main point was to say you can't have surface charge if electrons don't move from one ion to another. As far as i know, no electrons in BT move from one ion in the lattice to another. It is an insulator. Polarization can mean a greater dipole moment which in this case means a weaker reverse electric field, which appears to be a major cause of a high k (once they are further apart, they have weaker attraction and therefore can be pulled even further apart).

This is much different than y_po's idea that electrons have to move in the lattice to create a stronger reverse electric field. I have read several papers on BT and none of them talk about a movement of electrons as y_po is claiming.

So one of my earlier posts about max energy storage may turn out to be the most accurate: use ion charge movement and permittivity of free space without a high k because the high k is the RESULT of the movement of the charges.

Y_Po said...


y_po, i think you're using a model of how dielectrics work that is much too simple. After 50 years, they still do not understand everything about how BT works. Any simple model will fail.

Nope, I use correct model which have worked since the beginning. You use the model which which you can't handle. I told you the first time. We understand perfectly how BT works, I don't understand where you got this.

Y_Po said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Y_Po said...


This is much different than y_po's idea that electrons have to move in the lattice to create a stronger reverse electric field.

I is not my idea, it is how you understood my idea. You understood it completely wrong.

Surface charge is due to ions which shifted in electric field. It is the same thing as polarization.

zawy said...

If there are no electrons moving, just ions shifting position, then there is no change in surface charge.

To show how complicated BT is, look at this 2006 paper which discusses many problems with various quantum models of it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17001003

Notice that they mention energies of up to 38,000 J/cm^3 although i can't determine the real meaning of it most of the research.

Using my method which you claim is too complicated for me, I get 2,000 J/cm^3 as possible but it's sure to be way off due to quantum considerations. Distances of only 2 angstroms are going to have to many quantum effects to use simple classical theory.

Y_Po said...


If there are no electrons moving, just ions shifting position, then there is no change in surface charge.

There is, if you define surface as one cell thick. You still don't understand that polarization and surface charge is the same thing.

Y_Po said...


Notice that they mention energies of up to 38,000 J/cm^3 although

I can't read it but I can only guess this is a phase change energy, well, boiling watter takes a lot of energy, so what is your point ?

zawy said...

Your equation

E=U*Q/2

where E=energy, U=voltage, and Q for charge only applies to parallel plate capacitors. There has to be a movement of charge from one plate to the other, not a small sift in position of charge

To explain how this is wrong in another way: if each 4 angstrom lattice is to be treated as a capacitor then you have 10E-6/4E-10 = 25,000 layers of capacitors in series which would cause the total capacitance to be 25,000 times lower than what you're trying to calculate for each lattice.

Y_Po said...


To explain how this is wrong in another way: if each 4 angstrom lattice is to be treated as a capacitor then you have 10E-6/4E-10 = 25,000 layers of capacitors in series which would cause the total capacitance to be 25,000 times lower than what you're trying to calculate for each lattice.

this is exactly right, so how am I wrong?

Y_Po said...


Your equation

E=U*Q/2

where E=energy, U=voltage, and Q for charge only applies to parallel plate capacitors.

Actually it applies to all capacitors

zawy said...

Notice that the full text of that research on BT is available (for those who aren't in a country that's not blocking access).

For the ion movement to act the same as the charge on a parallel plate capacitor, the ions would have to move across the 4 angstroms across the lattice to change the polarity. This can't happen because you would be breaking the ionic atoms apart, destroying the BaTiO3 compound.

Polarization of the material refers to a change in the dipole moment. A capacitor acquires a dipole moment by moving charges from one plate to the other. So it's good to say a capacitor is polarized. But pulling the plates of the capacitor apart also increases the polarization when the E field is looked at from the sides. But this decreases capacitance. So polarization and capacitance are not measures of the same thing as your comments require.

zawy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Y_Po said...

Why would I divide my 250 J/cc by 25000 ?

Y_Po said...


Notice that the full text of that research on BT is available (for those who aren't in a country that's not blocking access).

OK, i got it, I don't 38,000 but there are some phase change energies numbers.


For the ion movement to act the same as the charge on a parallel plate capacitor,....

Who says it act the same? Just because formula similar does not mean it means the same. I advice you to refresh your memory on electrostatic with dielectrics.

zawy said...

The 25,000 doesn't go against you if you are OK with a k of 33,000 * 25,000 = 825,000,000 inside the lattice at low voltage. People have measured a k of 33,000 for modified BT.

But if k = 825,000,000 internally and you have 1 electron per "plate" (or molecule) on the lattice, then the energy per cc is

J/cc = J/molecule * molecules/mole * mole/cc

J/cc = 1/2*Q*V * 6E23 * 1/38

J/cc = 1/2*1.6E-19*825,000,000*V*6E23*1/38

V=350V/1E-6 * 2E-10 = 0.07V/lattice for EEStor,
but let's use 0.0000007 V/lattice which is 100,000 times less than EEStor's voltage.

this gives

J/cc = 7*10^7 J/cc which is not possible, so treating each lattice as a capacitor with an internal k does not work. If you abandon the model that the lattices act as a series of capacitors, then there must not be a charge across a distance that could store energy according to classical theory E=UQ/2. If the charge separation is not acting like a capacitor, how can there be charge difference store energy?

My explanation uses the energy in bonds that do not cause layers of capacitors to form, but i cannot tell you how to apply E=QV/2 to prove that my method is OK.

You used 1 electron per surface of 1x1 angstrom. Where did you get that? Where did the electron come from?

If Ba+2, 3O-2, and Ti+4 are all the charges that can be used in E=QV/2 then i get a possibility of:

E = J/molecule = 6e- * 0.07 / 2 = 3.4E-20

which gives:

3.4E-20*6E23*1/38 = 536 J/cc as a theoretical max. But if this applies, then why can't the same charges be used to model the lattice as a capacitor?

I now appreciate that E=UQ/2 applies in all classical electric fields. The uncertainty principle E*t>h indicated to me that classical equations like E=UQ/2 can still apply. But i do not see how it can apply in fig 1.4b of link below (6.7 MB pdf file) where is the charge Q in 1.4b?

http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/available/etd-10232001-192042/unrestricted/thesis.pdf

Y_Po said...

zawy,
You are completely wrong pretty much everywhere.
I insist you read some course on electrostatic+dielectrics
I doubt I will be able to explain it to you here.

Y_Po said...

zawy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectric
Until you understand what are they talking about discussion is pointless.
look for "surface charge "

zawy said...

To say i am wrong everywhere in the last post is a strange comment since I am mostly agreeing with your.

In the last link i gave they mention 0.21 C/m2 for simple BT which i calculate to be about 640 J/cc. The modified form might typically have 10 times more permittivity, so the 7,000 J/cc still seems possible.

Y_Po said...


To say i am wrong everywhere in the last post is a strange comment since I am mostly agreeing with your

If agree with me for a wrong reason you are still wrong. And you don't really agree with me anyway. I am sorry but you need to read a book.

zawy said...

I read it. The article states, as i already knew, that surface charge applies only to the piezo effect. The piezo effect is the least important method by which BT stores energy, as I have written here many times.

Y_Po said...


n the last link i gave they mention 0.21 C/m2 for simple BT which i calculate to be about 640 J/cc. The modified form might typically have 10 times more permittivity, so the 7,000 J/cc still seems possible.

Permittivity does not go into equation so it is 640 which is consistent with my 250

Y_Po said...


I read it. The article states, as i already knew, that surface charge applies only to the piezo effect. The piezo effect is the least important method by which BT stores energy, as I have written here many times.

It applies to everything!
You have to realize that you have no clue what are talking about.
I am sorry.

zawy said...

Well, if you give me another link that contradicts my last post about piezo being the only source of surface charge or otherwise supports your viewpoint, I will be glad to read it to try to educate myself to the level of superior knowledge that you think you have.

Y_Po said...

zawy,
I can't give you links on every "stupidity"
Trust me, you are wrong.

zawy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zawy said...

Surface charge only applies to the surface, so my 25,000 layers of equivalent capacitors do not apply. The following is a correction to your calculated 250 J/cc which was calculated from 1 e- in a 1x1 angstrom area:

J/cc = 1/2*1.6E-19/ang^2*350V/um * 1E4um/cm * (1E8 ang/cm)^2 = 2800 J/cc

Y_Po said...

zawy,
You know I can multiply myself :)

Marcus said...

Zawy, if EESTor don't get back to you could also try Prof Randall directly. Especially with your latest ideas. I suspect for someone at his level of expertise explaining any of this stuff will come easily and with pleasure.

Marcus said...

ps if you do get some answers I would be very keen to hear of them.