I got a lucky break in my efforts in that Dick Weir actually gave me the time of day to take a phone call from me. He didn't have to do that. I was attacked personally for making this claim and understandably some of that originates from my intention to maintain this blog anonymously and my admission that I own stock in Zenn Motors....but alot of it stems from a distinct lack of manners and civility and greed that lives in our culture unfortunately. Mr. Weir has been nothing but kind to me in taking my calls and helping me understand what he was able to relay and still stay on course with his mission.
Alot of people ask me, "what do you make of Dick Weir as a person, do you believe him?" I say this truly, I like Dick Weir, I do believe him and I would like him even if this EEStor technology never comes to fruition. Why do I feel that way about someone I've never met in person but only spoken to over the phone? Reason #1: Weir is a friendly soul. My personal take on him, which I am sure other people will validate, is that he is not pompous, cocky, off-putting or in any way snooty, rude or combative. He's inviting, jolly, friendly and amusing--with a good sense of humor. My read is he's not out to prove anything to anybody from a personality point of view. I honestly think that we have a man here who has been plying away at a practice or trade for maybe 50 years with a discipline and focus that is uncommon except among pioneers. So because EEStor has chosen to keep a low profile as they go through steps to develop their business--protect their IP, build out their production--that this implies they are scamming everyone? Let me be very clear here: if you talk with Dick Weir yourself, you will very quickly see that this is not the type of person who pulls scams. Make up your own mind on this but I am telling you, the reader of this blog, that I do not sense any shred of scam or hoax in Dick Weir at all. Zero. I'm not saying I am an expert at reading people but I have common sense. And one thing I can tell you is that the way some people express themselves in the comments threads, even if they turn out to be correct about whatever it is they are trying to prove, I would not trust them. Because, your character is a clue to your honesty and trustworthiness.
So, as I stand back and look at what has become of this blog, I can see that I have not done a good job of sticking to what I had originally laid out back in June when I said:
In the meantime, moving forward, I'm more than a little concerned about the level and quality of comments being posted on my blog. What we all have in common is an interest in whether or not EEStor can deliver this amazing technology. We can disagree and even be cranky about each other's assessments of this. But I'd like to ask that everyone show a little more civility and class. My blog is like my home. If I invite you in, act like a guest. I'm going to hold off moving to a moderated comment format for now. My guess is there are always going to be a few people who go beyond polite skepticism and issue vulgarities to ruin the atmosphere. If it keeps up, I'll have to moderate the comments.
Now, it seems to me I have made a mistake. In my attempt to increase discussion, I changed the format of the blog to allow anonymous posting. And even among posters with recurring usernames, I have not stuck to my plan to try and keep the discourse on this blog civil. I would also like to thank Steve for making this clearer to me via email. He was right that anonymous posting and some of the comments posted should be deleted immediately. I am taking corrective actions on that now. Anonymous posting is no longer permitted. Further, I am going to make an effort to remove comments that are not respectful and/or offensive and I would ask help from readers to do this well. Simply shoot me an email with a link and reference to an offensive post, and I will delete it after considering the merits. Now, of course, this is probably going to become unmanageable. So I may have to move to fully moderated comments only. Thats where all comments have to go to me in email and I have to manually approve each one. I'm not a fan of that format because I believe real dialogue is hampered in part due to the time delays....but I'm going to try and maintain a clean blog here. I'm asking for some help from the readers on this.
So, taken altogether here, I'd like to apologize to EEStor and to Dick Weir, personally for not doing a better job of maintaining a blog worthy of being a source of information for EEStor. I think I can do a better job moving forward and restore some of the innocence that sparked my efforts to launch this blog. And if you, the reader, think these words from me sound strange, then consider this: imagine you came up with a great technology that could help many people, but as you stuck to your plans, kept your head down and moving forward, people started to attack you personally--people who have never met you, calling you things which should only be reserved for unaccomplished slothful people....eventually it would wear you down. And you know what, in Mr. Weir's case, it's completely undeserved. Before it's all said and done, if all goes well, the man may be awarded a Nobel prize for his breakthroughs.
And I'd also like to apologize to readers who have been offended at some of the comments on this blog. Please email me any offensive comments and I will do my best to delete them.
Invariably, some questions may arise as to why I deleted certain comments and not others. All I can say to you is if you had a comment deleted, it was probably disrespectful or contained content which included a personal attack. I would invite you to direct your energy elsewhere to conduct yourself in that manner. But I would also invite you to resubmit your comment devoid of personal attacks. This can be a place where people debate, but it is my blog and I want to keep the discourse at a higher level.
And I would pledge that if I can't operate this blog in a manner befitting it's subject matter, then I will have to close up shop which would be really disappointing to a lot of people.
Finally, I don't need to run this blog.My main motivation is to increase awareness of what EEStor is up to in the hopes that in some small way, it could hasten it's arrival. That's something on which even skeptics who comment here can agree with me.
283 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 283 of 283schneibster
would you care to summarize your research? I'd be happy to create a separate post just for that topic.
Schneibster,
That was the most elightening post I've read here. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
By the way, is this your post below?
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60369
I answered the question after you asked it the first time. Look back.
The Cabot Corp had patent 6268054 which is the only one I've reviewed that had a metal oxide coating. Their permittivity was 2,000 in example 3 that had a niobium oxide coating. this link said crystal Niobium Ox has a k of 50, from an amorphous k of 20. The cobalt patent also mention the coating should be less than 20, preferably 10 to 5 nm, same as EEStor. Using my capacitance equation with 10 nm thickness and k=50, I get k=2,500, very close to what they measured. They used another coating on top, but it was only 0.3%.
For crystal Al2O3, the highest k i could find was 10, 5 times lower than 50 which is why my capaciatnce for EEStor came out to be 5 times lower, 500. But EEStor mentions they make the Al2O3 a corundum (bind it with an impurity to make it things that include ruby and saphire) which can have a larger k. With lathanum, i found a link that said k=25. There are several other dopings that can imporve k of Al2O3. To diminish k of CMBT by only 12%, the doped-Al2O3 would have to have a k that is 2,000 which seems impossible. But if they were to settle for an overall k of 10,000 (still world-changing) then the Al2O3 k would have to be 350. Maybe that's reachable. We've already discussed that maybe the PET with similar thickness and k=70 could be largely pushed to the sides. Likewise, if they have achieved a fantastic k=100 for the Al2O3 and made the vertical thickness squeezed down to 3 nm, they could have an overall k=10,000. But k=18,000 seems unreachable with the coatings they have described.
I need to gather up the homies and pop some caps, so don't be surprised if i have fewer posts today.
I bet others have described using metal-oxide coatings and have never got above k=5,000. The coating appears to be for preventing the CMBT to react with the solvents during processing.
THe fist link above mentioned 23 metals preferred for providing the coating. None were aluminum, maybe because it has a lower k.
Yes, to both posters who mentioned it: it's hard to understand EEStor reaching this far if y_po and I are correct.
My last post was hard follow with confusing spelling errors. But I'll summarize: The cabot patent with coatings had results in agreement with my capacitance equation. I still can't find anyway that EEStor could be using aluminum oxides as a coating. Having an aluminum oxide k > 200 would be a breakthrough and maybe somebody has done it.
Nothing we've mentioned changes y_po's energy storage argument. I thought my Ti atom displacement argument was related to y_po's, but now I realize my displacement argument is just based on the strength of the field V/um. So that's 3 independent ways to prove it's "impossible".
I like my Ti atom displacement argument best because it shows why k has to start decreasing above a certain V/um. The Ti cannot move outside its lattice structure, only 2 A to the side of it. To create the surface charge EEStor is claiming (350 V/um), the Ti atom would have to move 68 Ang, way way outside its lattice, which would destroy the crystal. The bottom 17 layers of the lattice would have to have all the Ti stripped from the lattice and pulled upward and all the O2 in the top of each particle CMBT would have to be stripped downward. There would be no Ti near the bottom, and no O2 near the top: the crystal is shattered.
So what happens instead in such a high V/um is that Ti reaches the limit that it can easily move and then bumps up against a QM wall. Since it can't move anymore, the dipole does not improve and k drops linearly with voltage.
zawy,
Why do you say that PET has k = 70
for PET k ~ 4
You are correct for Alumina k ~ 10
I found a link somewhere that suggested 70, but i am not sure. k=70 was for the benefit of EEStor.
The Northrop patent actually measured energy density in example 1, so i guess it's possible. They didn't use CMBT (they used CCTO), but they're similar enough for y_po and my arguments experimentally disproven.
"The dielectric properties of these capacitors were constant up to a field strength of 250 V/um."
This constitutes experimental evidence that y_po and I are wrong.
Y_po,
You should read the patent completely,
Fig 3 shows actual dielectric energy density and PROJECTED CCTO density at the lines labeled,800, 8000, 80000, so no measurement yet at these densities.
Another though. If EEstor managed to coat the BT with CCTO then ... maybe...
it would not follow the patents but they are not approved anyway.
so jam could you kind of do a very short summery of what the measurements contained in this patent mean in terms of the theoretical limits calculated by Y_Po and zawy? Does this patent really suggest they are wrong and give more credence to EESTOR or not?
Jam,
I just read it more carefully
Fig 3. shows energy density below 1 J/cc. it is indeed measurement
But the rest is projected, therefore there is nothing new compared EEstor,BASF and the rest of the BT gang, same old mistake.
Does this patent really suggest they are wrong and give more credence to EESTOR or not?
No, it does not, all these patents from the physics point of view are essentially a copy of each other.
Don't ask me how it is possible, I am not a patent expert :)
Zawy said:
"I answered the question after you asked it the first time. Look back."
I did. You didn't.
Y_po,
I'm still waiting for you to tell me why your claims that k > 2000 or 5000 or some other arbitrary number in BaTiO3 is "impossible" conflict with published literature. We've now seen a patent by the University of California claiming k > 10000, three years old, and one even older (eight years old) from Phillips claiming k > 20000. That'll do for evidence for the moment. I'll go find more if your response warrants it.
schneibster, I can guess. The reason is that Y_Po thinks, as do other anons on the web (granted, not the most reliable source of info) that these patent claims are just calculated extrapolations without regard to saturation effects. Since patents do not hold nearly the same significance scientifically as a journal publications this is why those other references you mentioned are so important.
Marcus said,
"...these patent claims are just calculated extrapolations without regard to saturation effects."
I beg to differ; read the UC patent again. That is not an extrapolation; it's a measurement. The table is discussed in the text, and the measurement technique detailed, as well as the technique of preparing the samples. Since the text is not copyrighted, it has the advantage that it is reproducible here, and there is no fee to view it. That's why I prefer to talk about the patents. I would say that anyone working for the University of California filing a false patent making such claims would be drummed out of academia if it were found out, and I expect there's a paper to back it up. Publish or perish.
Just to add. Here is a figure a fair bit higher than the previously reported max of 10 J/cc. These guys got 34 J/cc.
High energy density metal-insulator-metal capacitors
with Ba†„Ni1/2,W1/2…0.1Ti0.9‡O3 thin films
N. K. Karan, J. J. Saavedra-Arias, M. Perez, R. Thomas, and R. S. Katiyara
APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 92, 012903 2008
Now what was your theoretical max j/cc zawy?
schneibster that is a measurement is encouraging. I hope there is an associated paper. I'll do a search.
schneibster, from what I can see in the UC patent the main finding seems to be high k at nano sized grains and a method of making a high density material. They measure k at different frequencies. How is this relevant to saturation effects at high voltage?
Well, marcus, I hope you have more luck than I did. I found symposium notes that mention talks by the UC patent claimants, but no papers. I'm beginning to think that UC is protecting its IP by holding off publication.
I found pretty strong evidence that the first name on the patent application,Guodong Zhan, is involved in nanotech research at UC Davis. A number of projects involving carbon nanotubes and composites made from them are mentioned among various academic sources, and there is evidence he is also doing some quantum optics investigation concerning some of these nanomaterials.
well I did find some papers but I'm still not sure how they are relevant since in the patent they didn't measure k at different voltages. Am I missing something?
Marcus said,
"schneibster, from what I can see in the UC patent the main finding seems to be high k at nano sized grains and a method of making a high density material. They measure k at different frequencies. How is this relevant to saturation effects at high voltage?"
Marcus, I think that you have to investigate data from multiple sources, and that some of the data will be incomplete for purposes of evaluating EEStor's claims. For example, we have various papers concerning high dielectric strength of polymers with enhanced dielectric constant using BaTiO3 nanoparticles over here; over there, we have coating mechanisms for the nanoparticles that prevent them from clumping; from a couple sources, we have extremely high dielectric constants for BaTiO3; and from yet another source we have high dielectric strength and high permittivity for BaTiO3 thin films. It's obvious that there are no seminal papers in this space, and that there is still a great deal to be found out. All we're going to be able to determine is whether EEStor's claims are plausible or likely, not whether they are correct. A review of all of these sources put together strongly suggests that what EEStor is claiming is not merely plausible but likely. To find out if it's correct, we're gonna have to wait.
On the other hand, putting claims about what is "impossible" to bed without dinner is eminently doable using these sources. And that is what I'm attempting to do, I think with some success. The characteristics of these composite coated CMBT/PET thin films are becoming more obvious the more poking around we do. We've heard claims here about what's "impossible" that are belied by hard documentation. What appears to be happening is twofold:
1. Questions that bring up legitimate concerns calling claims by these naysayers into question are being ignored. This has to be obvious by now.
2. When challenged in this manner, instead of a direct response, either the subject gets changed or ever-more esoteric claims of impossibility due to this or that physical principle whose plausibility and applicability to the subject at hand is unclear get made.
A frank evaluation of this indicates that such claims are becoming less and less likely, and may be approaching implausibility.
Now, whether an actual product will begin rolling off the end of the production line is in question as well, and ultimately, the proof of that will be said rolling. Without being privy to the details of the production process (and it has to be pretty obvious why that would be the case), there's no other way to evaluate it for certain. On the other hand, there are certain sorts of processes that one would expect such a line to embody, and the equipment and personnel needed for such a line appear to be in place. So again, from this direction, we have not merely plausibility but likelihood.
From the financial standpoint, to assert that a high-tech investing firm like KPCB has invested millions in a company without due diligence investigation is implausible as well. So here, too, we have touched on an area that tends to bolster the case.
I can't state as an accomplished fact that EEStor will really do what they've said; the accomplished fact itself will have to do that. But I think that the preponderance of evidence is that they have. And I think that's all we're going to get.
marcus, thanks for the CCTO links
If CCTO can be made into small grains of ~ 0.1 µm and use as a filler between BT grains of ~ 1µm than both dilectric constants can be tailored to get the famous k = 18500. Then no plastic nor alumina is to be used to preserve the higk k-value. Therefore, no polarization is possible but maybe not necessary if the voltage breakdown is high enough for the CCTO. The energy density required per my calculation shows more than 8000 J/cc for 52KW-HR EESU. Where is y_po calcs? Is my number wrong?
Just to add. Here is a figure a fair bit higher than the previously reported max of 10 J/cc. These guys got 34 J/cc.
upper limit for 300 volt/micron is around 250 J/cc
10 J/cc zawy gave is for non optimal k=20,000 i believe
Can we reconcile jam's and Y_Po's conclusions?
Marcus said...
Can we reconcile jam's and Y_Po's conclusions?
How are you planning to reconcile my 250 J/cc limit with his 8000 J/cc ?
I was hoping for someone else to attempt this!
Basically in your view Y_Po does jam have a point?
Basically in your view Y_Po does jam have a point?
He does not, and his whole post make no sense whatsoever. "Therefore, no polarization is possible" what that supposed to mean? Is this a line from Star Trek series ? :)
y_po,
Don't you have a detailed calculation of energy density somewhere in this blog? I think I saw it.Anyway here is mine :
Volume of dielectric :
5080 x 11143 x 12.7 x 1000 x 31151 =
2.239e16 µm^3
1 cc = 1e12 µm^3
Volume = 22,394 cc
Energy :
52000 w.h = 1.872e8 w.s = 1.872e8 J
Density :
1.872e8 J / 22,394 cc = 8359 J/cc
Note : components layers = 1000
# components = 31151 as per EEstor
12.7 µm is from my simul
jam,
You really expect people to understand what you wrote?
i mean this set of random numbers.
But here you have calculated the energy density assuming EESTOR's claimed energy storage for an EESU. This is not a calculation from first principles, this already assumes the result no?
But here you have calculated the energy density assuming EESTOR's claimed gravimetric energy density
He did? LOL
Basically in your view Y_Po does jam have a point?
He does not, and his whole post make no sense whatsoever. "Therefore, no polarization is possible" what that supposed to mean? Is this a line from Star Trek series ? :)
I just saw this post from y_po.
As I understand, the polarization is helped by the fact that the grains can be physically turned and aligned along the electric field by moving in the viscous PET before being frozen in place. That's why they change from glass to PET to help this very process, I think. Whithout such a gel, no movememt is possible. This is assuming that each grain has its own macro-dipole built from the zillons molecules which make up the grains.
jam said...
And you got this idea from latest EEstor PR? Right? :) All their PR are complete and utter nonsense. So you better start (as Marcus suggested) with first principles.
each tiny capacitor is made from two plates 0.508 cm wide by 1.1143 cm long, separated by a dilectric 12.7 µm thick.
each components comprises 1000 such tiny capacitors
As per EEstor, they need 31,151 compnents to make the famous 31 Farad to store 52Kw.h at 3500 Volts.
5080µm x 11143µm x 12.7µm x 1000 x 31151 =
2.239e16 µm^3
1 cc = 1e12 µm^3
Dielectric Volume = 2.239e16 /1e12 =22,394 cc
Energy :
52000 w.h x 3600 s/h= 1.872e8 w.s = 1.872e8 J
1 w.s = 1 J
Density :
1.872e8 J / 22,394 cc = 8359 J/cc
Is this clearer?
This is the volumetric density.
I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand this.
y_po, the polarization is mentioned in the patents.
Good find marcus. I knew the 10 J/cc seemed too low and i wondered if anyone was watching close enough to point it out. It was a quick figure as an afterthought in my last paragraph
Now after using the equations, I get 250 J/cc as the max for EEStor's k=22,000 and moving the Ti+4 1 angstrom, half-way towards one of the O2. Two angstrom was too much as it would have to be on top of an O2. My reduced equation for calculating this is:
max J/cc = 355,00*(i*L)^2/k
where i*L = dipole moment
i = number of 2 equal and opposite electron charges (the ion number) presumably 4 for Titanium/oxygen pairs.
L= distance between the dipole pair in angstroms. It's the distance the Ti+4 (or Zr+4) is moved out of equilibrium equilibrium.
Notice that J/cc max is higher if k is smaller. The reason is that a smaller k allows a higher V/um before surface charge saturation occurs. Surface charge raises with V, but energy density raises with V^2. In effect, you want to trade k for a higher breakdown voltage so that you can push V up. If EEStor could make it k=2,000 and 3,500/um (ten times lower k, but 10 times higher V/um field), then the max would be 2,500 J/cc. y_po's position indicates this will be impossible due to breakdown.
This equation assumes a 4x4x4 angstrom lattice. If you could design a 2x2x4 lattice where the 4 is in the direction of the E field, you could have 4 times more surface charge and energy storage without reducing the 4 A distance that the ion can move to create the dipole.
y_po, the polarization is mentioned in the patents
So? How exactly does it make less of a nonsense?
zawy
250 J/cc is a limit using optimal k
and optimal (which gives largest energy density) k is not 20,000.
for 300 Volt/micron it is about 200.
Well at least some of us (including me) are learning a little more physics through this fairly extended exercise. I'm going to have to drag out my own copy of Feynman's lectures at this rate...
Jam, that's right, but you're just using EEStor's numbers. y_po and I do not believe those numbers based on physics. We do not know where EEStor went wrong, assuming we're right.
y_po, I'm just blindly using the two equations based on the assumption that it's "like" Ti+4 moving a max of 1 ang.
If you're right that 300 V/um and k=200 is best, then the "equivalent" 4+ dipole moves 0.53 ang and max energy density is 8,000 J/cc. You've indicated that around 280 is more realistic, so my equation does not match up with your thoughts. But if L=0.53 A really is where saturation occurs, my equation says 34 J/cc would be max energy density for EEStor's k=22,000.
Where did you get 300 V/um and k=200?
My last post used my other equation:
max V/um = 28,000*i*L/k
This is still for a 4x4x4 ang lattice.
Jam, that's right, but you're just using EEStor's numbers. y_po and I do not believe those numbers based on physics. We do not know where EEStor went wrong, assuming we're right.
I though this was the point of this exercise : to see if EEstor numbers make sense.
y_po
A water molecule, in water, takes 10e-11 sec to flip its polarization i.e. change its positon.
A water molecule, in ice, takes 10e-6 sec to do the same.
What is the problem for a BT "grain" not being able to do the same over many minutes embeded in plastic?
A water molecule, in water, takes 10e-11 sec to flip its polarization i.e. change its positon.
A water molecule, in ice, takes 10e-6 sec to do the same.
What is the problem for a BT "grain" not being able to do the same over many minutes embeded in plastic?
It may be able or may not be able.
Question is: how is that relevant here?
Yes, the EEStor numbers make sense, except we're wondering how they can have the numbers they report. Usually the k is forced lower than they report when you bring the voltage up to 350 V/um. It's called dielectric saturation. The question is "How are they doing it if it's not a scam?" Also the Aluminum oxide coating does not make sense because according to capacitors in series, it should ruin the k. But EEStor reports it only lowers k by 12%.
This just came out in the MIT review. In the article, Weir states that there will be press releases on a more rapid pace, which bodes very well that his tech is real. Also that he is talking with solar companies as well. I guess everyone is now officially pushed to the wall on this one. You either believe what Wier is saying, or you think he is conning everyone. With the type of statements made here, i don't think there is any middle ground. I personally really like the tone of what was said!
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21171/page1/
B. Here is Jeff Dahn's email address Jeff.Dahn@Dal.Ca from dahousie (univ in canada, he is quoted in the article). Maybe you could contact him to see if you would be interested in contributing to the blog.
The article didn't have any new information and even mention glass as the matrix as in the old patent instead of PET.
An interesting thesis on BT
www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/SHEN,%20TA-JEN.pdf?ucin1157504883
jam, are you suggesting the answer to Y_Po's question on the relevance of dipole flipping is contained in this thesis? Perhaps you could be a little more specific? A thesis is a lot to wade through.
Not necessarely. But for a good understanding of what this material is. It does mentionned polarization , grain size, breakdown etc.
In summary, k ~ 2000 ! in their configuration.
What is so difficult in establishing if the permittivity value has been reach or not?
They have built a bunch of components which have a design capacitance value of 979µF.
Just send me one. In 5 minutes, with a resistor, a soldering iron, a couple of alligator clip and an earphone(or speaker), I can verify if the capacitance is close to 1000µF or more likely 10 µF.
"Just send me one. In 5 minutes, with a resistor, a soldering iron, a couple of alligator clip and an earphone(or speaker), I can verify if the capacitance is close to 1000µF or more likely 10 µF."
That's the problem. They're not sending them to anyone.
It doesn't have to be FedEx. Just a bubble-wrap envelop will do :)
Not necessarely. But for a good understanding of what this material is. It does mentionned polarization , grain size, breakdown etc.
In summary, k ~ 2000 ! in their configuration.
It does mention polarization, but it has no relation to what EEstor put in their patent. Also this thesis does not mention saturation. It mention break-down only once when giving its definition.
Great link jam. If charges can move through the material than dipole can be much larger. I found out the electron cloud-created dipole can be maybe half the total dipole (ionic the other half and not counting electron movements in doped BT), meaning maybe twice as much J/cc will be available in my calculations for a given SMALL "Ti" ion movement, plus the new electron movement. Ti/O2 dipole presumably can be much further than electron cloud dipole, although feynman calculated them to be about the same. Also, if charges can move fairly easily through a doped Al2O3, then capacitance problem might be solved. In the most absurd case I can get 800 J/cc for EEStor, not counting electron movement. I even looked at energy stored in compressing (vertical) and pulling (sides) the PET using youngs modulus and got only 0.06 kWh/EESU
Great link jam. If charges can move through the material than dipole can be much larger.
They can't, and when they can it is not reversible therefore you can't store energy.
Hey Y_Po, how much of the story has changed since this paper? This seems like quite a nice albeit dated introductory paper that may help others follow a little better the technical discussions.
http://journals.iucr.org/q/issues/1952/06/00/a00742/a00742.pdf
Acta Cryst. (1952). 5, 739
Origin of Ferroelectricity in Barium Titanate and
Other Perovskite-Type Crystals
BY HELEN D. MEGAW
Marcus,
I don't know, I can't read your link, I guess not much.
Ok, what do you make of this?
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20060097302&OS=20060097302&RS=20060097302
In case that link doesn't work try this US patent App. No.
200100846
Marcus,
I don't think it is possible to decipher what are they talking about.
They seem to be claiming a max energy storage of 1.66 MJ/kg. How much does a cc of BaTiO3 weigh? If it was the same density as water that would be 1.66 kJ / cc. Do you think perhaps Weir has some quantum tricks up his sleeve?
zawy, is this patent not claiming reversible electron movement just as you hypothesized?
That's only 300 J/cc, 35 times less than eestor 11,000 J/cc. I haven't read it yet. Still only northrop g is similar. Bast didn't mention saturation, so theywere too speculative. For any charge flow to work, it would have to flow thru the alumina too. But then pet is still a serous problem for the high k. I saw several patents that used a glass matrix (eestor first patent) and the k was indeed lowered in line with series capacitance. I wonder if the compressing of pet raises the k in addition to thinnig via compression or pushing to the sides. But I don't see how electron movement could help energy storage even though it helps k for the same reason a metal has infinite k and zero energy storage. I just saw a ref saying 30nm is best for BT.
Oh well, I'm not that surprised actually. There are a lot of wackos out there and since the patent process doesn't check scientific validity...
Marcus,
You found another possibly nonsensical patent. I really lost my faith in patents.
I can tell you how possible supercapacitor could look like: It will be made using relatively low k material, with extremely large break-down voltage (100 times higher than what we have now) dielectric layer and plates will be few atoms thick. It will have energy density about 1-2 MJ/kg. Mr Weir by the way is almost ready to claim 20 MJ/kg (usink 1,100 V/micron).
20 MJ/kg is higher then any (I think) chemical energy density.
y_po,
Wikipedia on MJ/KG
liquid hydrogen 143 MJ/KG
gasoline 46.9
anthracite coal 32.5
ethanol 30
lithium ion battery .54 - .72
capacitor by EEStor 1.0
(per MIT TechReview article)
people mess'n with the 'pedia entry?
y_po, 11,000 J/cc / 6 g/cc = 1.8 MJ/kg at 350 V/um
I believe the 1,100 V/um was breakdown only.
Carbon nanotubes connecting two parallel plates. The problem will be making the plates thin and strong. Youngs modulus can probably be 1,500 MPa with 25% deformation. I get:
U = 1.5E12 * 0.25^2 / 2 = 1.9E11/m^3
U = 190,000 J/cc
Where the energy is simply stored in the carbon nanotube springs. Probably have trouble finding strong plates that can hold that kind of charge.
Speaking of CN, carbon nanotubes are dropping in price 50% faster than moore's law for transistors. In five years, the trend indicates the cheap form will cost $2 per pound. If you think EEStor is important...
y_po,
Wikipedia on MJ/KG
liquid hydrogen 143 MJ/KG
gasoline 46.9
anthracite coal 32.5
ethanol 30
lithium ion battery .54 - .72
capacitor by EEStor 1.0
(per MIT TechReview article)
You forgot weight of oxygen
I believe the 1,100 V/um was breakdown only.
Right, and since Mr. Weir don't believe in saturation it will make energy density 10 time higher :)
y-po,
I (Wikipedia contributors) forgot the weight of the oxygen?
Are you saying the combustion oxygen should be factored into the MJ/KG values?
I (Wikipedia contributors) forgot the weight of the oxygen?
No, they did not, you did
Are you saying the combustion oxygen should be factored into the MJ/KG values?
Yes, if you compare energy density.
Post a Comment