MLC EEStor PR Layers? Why EEStor PR ED is correct but calculated permittivity and polarisation may be wrong and the Nobel prize may have to wait.

[Technopete]

Before you read this, although the suggestion below is entirely practical, and DW's action to cause it would probably be very reasonable, do not assume I necessarily believe what I am suggesting below!!!!

Firstly it is important to understand that Dick Weir is rightly a suspicious person. He believes that, as soon as they can, some big businesses would like to reproduce his devices and materials, find ways of circumventing his patents, then start manufacturing and selling high energy-density capacitors in competition with EEStor in any market which legally allows this, or where more expensive lawyers will let them get away with it. The boasts of BigMig on this site are one good indication of this - while we may not believe everything Mig is implying it is clearly true that there is a strong will to do everything possible to understand and reproduce EEStor's achievements.  Clearly Dick Weir is right to be suspicious.

Then possibly Dick Weir has laid certain traps by using misinformation, which will keep the imitators off the correct track for as long as possible.  However, as soon as EEStor layers can be analysed in highly-equipped, big-business research labs, most of the misinformation will be laid bare.

So what might this have to do with SEAL and the EEStor PR layers?

One big thing we know is that the aim for DW is to produce MLC capacitors (i.e. with many layers) off his automated production line.  Now with the comments of JG and similar, it is highly likely that DW has aleady implemented this MLC capability in the pilot line. Why would he wait to do this? It would only slow him down later.

Bearing this in mind, one neat dodge by DW to confuse the enemy would be to make and test multiple layers rather than single layers. Or as the skeptics might put it, DW surely cannot read a DVM so there is every chance of him accidentally setting an SLC/MLC switch to MLC in error on the ultra-sophisticated, computer-controlled, pilot, production line which he designed himself ;-).

Would it be a breach of trust? -

Would it be a breach of trust with SEAL, the PP investors or with Zenn to get SEAL to test and publish data for a multi-layer device without telling anyone - encouraging them to assume it was a single layer by just witholding information that it wasn't?  

Surely it would be simply a minor error of omission rather than a cardinal sin - the appropriate EEStor PR heading is "Layer dielectric thickness" which only mildly impies that the figures below are all in one layer rather than the total of separate parts.  

The PP Terms specs are all to do with ED and DF and there is nothing which forces DW to use any particular technology, geometry, voltage or number of layers.  Similarly the Zenn requirements are for ED, SE (specific energy = energy by weight) and output/input efficiency over charge and discharge time of many minutes.  So neither the PP investors nor Zenn really seem to care about device technology or geometry.  So it does seem fair game to mislead us here (including BigMig) if he wants to while delivering the information to Zenn and the PP investors that they consider important.

What would be the effect if layer A in the EEStor PR was actually an MLC device and not an SLC device?

Clearly the main impact would be on the measurements and calculated values that depend on the device geometry.

At a basic level anything dependent solely on device volume would be unaffected, but anything not directly measured whose calculation depended on the true dielectric thickness and true total area of the multiple layers would not be correct.

Let's look at the PR layer A numbers provided, one by one, then go on to some values we can calculate from them. Let's take two examples within the measured device thickness - a six layer MLC device of around 12.5um individual layer thickness (area 240 sq mm) nad an 18 layer device with thickness 4.2um and area 720 sq mm. The calculated values will be approximate, rather than exact to 2 or 3 decimal places.

Capacitance

This is just a straight measurement, so in that sense 0.74uF cannot be wrong.

Maximum Applied Voltage

Again, this is a straight setting of the power supply, so 1,500V must be right by definition.

Energy Density

The integrator technique used just measures straight energy, and the total volume we know is correct - even if the true electrode area is too low and the dielectric layer thickness too high, the total energy and total volume are correct, so dividing one by the other to get the energy density yields the correct value of 74 Wh/l = 266 J/cc.

Also, even if the dielectric layer thickness and total area are changed, by varying the voltage on the device proportionately with the thickness, then the same energy density should be obtained

DF

This depends on what is causing the ESR (equivalent series resistance) deemed to be in series with the "ideal capacitance". Varying the device geometry may vary the DF, or it may stay the same. DF was around 23% at 100Hz.

Permittivity

This is a really interesting one, because, at least with external test equipment that does not probe the innards, permittivity has to be calculated from the device geometry. The results would be as follows :-

single layer - 160,000
six layers - 4,500
18 layers - 500

and, of course, there would be no way for SEAL to know this was wrong.

Leakage current

Again, this is measured so cannot be wrong at 0.7uA for layer A.

Now let's look at some of the values we have calculated from the EEStor PR information

Charge

From the measured capacitance (which is still the same) and the measured voltage (still the same) then Q = CV still gives the same answer - 0.0011 C.

Discharge time constant

This is still the same ratio of charge to leakage current so 1,600 seconds is still right.

ESR (equivalent series resistance)

Because this is the ratio of three directly measured quantities (capacitance, DF and frequency) it does not change and is still around 500 ohms.

Electric Field

This is voltage divided by thickness, and the thickness is now varying with the number of layers. It works out at :

single layer - 20 MV/m
6 layers - 120 MV/m
18 layers - 360 MV/m (close to the original EEStor 2008 patent figure)

While good stuff, none of these values are unbelievably high.

And lastly we come to the biggy which is obviously :

Polarisation

The true dielectric polarisation is proportional to the thickness and inversely proportional to the area, so the figures now read :

single layer - 27.6 C/m
six layers - 4.5 C/m
18 layers - 1.5 C/m

The latter figure is within the range of what has been measured for a metal oxide, perovskite ceramic, of course.

Note that it is this figure for polarisation which brings ee-tom out in a cold sweat at night in the fear that he might just be wrong about all this, to the extent that he will ignore all evidence and raise points again and again which have been well addressed - such as that Ulrich does not like the things omitted from the SEAL report (which were never required in it in the first place). But it is notable that while ee-tom has discussed the implication of leakage through air for MLC devices, in his recent very voluminous posts he has never once considered the possibility that the EEStor PR devices might themselves be MLC.

The Nobel prize is highly dependent on getting a polarisation much higher than 1.5 C/m^2, and, as yet, the EEStor PR's do not prove that EEStor have this. Personally speaking it seems more likely that DW has something which well exceeds a real polarisation of 1.5 C/m^2, mainly because of the figures in the 2008 patent. But in reality we still do not know.

Hopefully this thread provides some food for thought, and shows the perils of jumping to conclusions without adequate consideration of the alternatives.

Regards,
TP

[wcushman]

He is not 10% done now after 3.5 more years.

GKR said:

When the leaked tape surfaced, I read it similarly to how you are suggesting.

In hindsight, there's a more charitable reading that makes sense. It seems more like he was just talking about automating powder production (85% of the line) and he expected the next 15% (layer mixing and EESU construction) to be easy, standard stuff. As often happens, the last 10% of the project turned out to be 90% of the work, as economically manufacturing a layer (voids, materials, morphologies) in which the individual CMBT grains express their properties, turned out to be really hard. 

wcushman said:

He said it was to produce EESUs. Read the last item. He said he was finished with R&D. This was a presentation to raise money. If these are not lies, then it is fraud by omission because he is allowing them to believe what it appears to say.

Would you really want to try to defend this?

[Technopete]

Just to round off this thread, the general consensus is that the EEStor 28 January PR layers are single layers.

This does mean that EEStor has something exceptional in terms of polarisation.

Regards,

TP

[PeterP]

Technopete Wrote:

the general consensus is that the EEStor 28 January PR layers are single layers.

Read the PR and quote anything which indicates that it is a single layer or lose credibility.

[Technopete]

PeterP said:

Technopete Wrote:

the general consensus is that the EEStor 28 January PR layers are single layers.

Read the PR and quote anything which indicates that it is a single layer or lose credibility.

It is the permittivities in the PR which indicate that each layer is a single layer.  Otherwise the permittivity would be a fraction (1/n for n layers) of the number stated.

For Layers A-D to be multi-layer then Dick Weir would have had to knowingly mis-state the permittivity, though SEAL would not necessarily know this from their measurements unless Dick told them.  On balance it does not seem likely that DW would deliberately mislead everyone.

Therefore the "headline polarisation" = plate charge divided by plate outer surface area for layer A remains 27.6 C/m^2 which is not easily explicable.

Regards,

TP

[PeterP]

HelloTechnopete,

 

The values in the table are calculated as parameter/layer. Just like miles/hour does not imply a journey of 1 mile so the parameter/layer does not imply 1 layer.

 

If you had been relying on the "general consensus" you would have lost credibility. However I already knew that you have stated that you can't vote on physics results so I was just trying to get you to think about it.

 

My own opinion is that the number of layers (1 or greater) is unknown.

Regards,

Peter

 

[ee-tom]

k/layer does not make sense because in this case if there are N layers dielectric measured k will be k0/N. I don't think you could get SEAL to sign off on a measured aggregate k in an MLCC since it would have no known relationship to the dielectric k. There is a lot we don't know about this story, and the tests, but the idea the tests were not SLCs is not plausible.

PeterP said:

HelloTechnopete,

 

The values in the table are calculated as parameter/layer. Just like miles/hour does not imply a journey of 1 mile so the parameter/layer does not imply 1 layer.

 

If you had been relying on the "general consensus" you would have lost credibility. However I already knew that you have stated that you can't vote on physics results so I was just trying to get you to think about it.

 

My own opinion is that the number of layers (1 or greater) is unknown.

Regards,

Peter

 

[PeterP]

k is independent of layers, it is a material property (if anything). Some common sense is expected.

[ee-tom]

I thought the argument was that multiple layers would give measured k different from (larger than) real k. The issue is that were this the case DW would be lying to SEAL about the thing they measured. No-one thinks that likley except maybe you. But it is a fun idea.

PeterP said:

k is independent of layers, it is a material property (if anything). Some common sense is expected.

[PeterP]

You are debating again.

 

 

[energy investor]

When the SMEs come out to play, all I get out of this thread is confusion.

Did Dick lie, did Dick misslead for justifiable reasons, did Dick missdirect?  In fact no-one here seems to have enough knowledge to even demonstrate the layers could perform or don't perform.  Will Dick get a Nobel?  Right through to... Is Dick guilty of missleading investors?

 

From time to time I see PeterP bringing in a note of sanity by saying we should go with what has been published - at least in default of empirical conflicting data.  I go along with that.

 

But despite everyone's claims to use scientific method, it seems to me that absolutely everyone has made assumptions about missing links and thereby become guilty of speculating.  And in the process shown their own bias.

 

Of course Capman could tell us what the truth of the matter is but he is not alowed and even if he did open up, the naysayers would demand proof positive, which given the commercial value of what is being attempted (if not achieved) that could never be allowed.

 

So all we get are people's theories (great), people's biases (not so great) and people's unsubstantiable allegations and defamations (absolute frigging crap - and often disgusting too!).

 

So while I appreciate TP's efforts in crafting this thread OP,  there ain't much here to interest me...after 4 years of staring at the same speculative stuff.

 

And every time I tune in to this dog and pony show I just leave....disappointed.  Strangely not with Dick's delays, but with people posting their grubby stuff....anonymously.  What Dick is trying to do is too important and too laudable for him to cop this stuff.

 

kind regards

ei

Forgive me...my rant for the day.

[gerund]

What amazes me is that this tape attributed to DW turns up mysteriously with no declared or admitted authorship and no valid indication on who released it and was apparently declared genuine based on someones assessment that it was DW's voice.  Tapes or dvds are digital instruments as most everyone in this thread is well aware. They can be added to and subtracted from at will with voice duplication dubbed in as easily as a movie script.   Yet it is quoted time and time again as though it was completely authentic.  So I guess it surprises me that anyone with scientific backgrounds could rely on it as history, even though this history seems to have been rewritten several times depending on various points of view.  

[Y_Po]

So after 4 years of believing every damn word on that tape believers all of a sudden go and say "tape is fake". Is not it convenient?