Disclosure | Energy Storage Feeds

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.

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

Views: 1772

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

LOL

well that is true, what an idiot I am.

You see, I just did not reckon DW would make the extra 2 or 3 breakthru's needed to manage MLCCs without cracking so quickly...

What is this garbage?

TP, it looks like DW has the Genie in the crystal.  Can he control it in and out?

TP, clever :)

2 things though - EEStor is already pushing the envelope (and way past it) without also pushing the limits of what is possible for high throughput with such thin layers or the ratio of particle size to layer thickness (another 5 years, anyone?) - and EEStor doing that would also cause SEAL Corp to declare permittivities that weren't accurate (legal quagmire).

I like it though. The thought never occurred to me, and it should have....

Removed the thread rules as they seemed unnecessary.

Regards,
TP

Hello Technopete,

An interesting exercise!

Nevertheless I disagree on the following grounds:

1) I don’t think Eestor have ever deliberately lied. Not In the patents and not in the PR’s. Predictions about the future are just predictions and are always unreliable, mistakes are made and stealth almost mandates using “weasel words”.

2) The evidence indicates the movement is in the other direction, less layers and thicker. This makes manufacture easier. I also think it makes for more efficient volumetric utilisation of the dielectric.

Regards,

Peter

From DW's conference call in June of 2009. This is deliberate and this is a lie. Hence, it is a deliberate lie:

10:58

So things are happening very quickly.

I: How much of this material have you produced?

W: Oh, ... tens of thousands of grams of it, per time. So a huge amount. It's all automated, by the way. Remember what I'm putting in ... What I got funded for by Kliener Perkins Caufield Byers was not to do R&D. Although we finished R&D. Was to put in a full production line. And that's what we got here. We're 85% completed on our first production line. Which is a modular concept. And so when this is done, it is full production. So I can actually press buttons now and produce powders. So all of that has been automated and the automatic controls in there for all the chemistry is been complete. Then I'll be putting in controls now on automation that are merely pick and place robots for taking the components and making EESUs with them.

11:52

We'll put that automation though probably in the first quarter of next year. First get everything going. We can make it work. Working very nicely. Get some pre-production units out of here for testing. And for our customers to build product out of.

I: OK. And then when you talk about going into the EESU production. What are some of the key issues in going from the material into more of a product prototype.

W: Well, the key thing is what we've got is ... The thing is can you get the hardware quick enough to actually ramp up and put your lines in at a very effective time frame. I'm happy to say that all our suppliers are US based. I got one Canadian supplier doing a great job. We're ... North American based then. And they all can produce the stuff in a very timely fashion. It's more off the shelf type things. So, I'm not asking for some, you know, $5 million complex piece of gear. It's more in the neighborhood of something $50,000 and I can buy it off the shelf.



PeterP said:

Hello Technopete,

An interesting exercise!

Nevertheless I disagree on the following grounds:

1) I don’t think Eestor have ever deliberately lied. Not In the patents and not in the PR’s. Predictions about the future are just predictions and are always unreliable, mistakes are made and stealth almost mandates using “weasel words”.

2) The evidence indicates the movement is in the other direction, less layers and thicker. This makes manufacture easier. I also think it makes for more efficient volumetric utilisation of the dielectric.

Regards,

Peter

Technopete,

How about you write up a paper on how the CMBT holds the charge.  Then you will share the prize with DW.  You can prob get some samples from the EEStor trashcans.  Just ask whiskeythief to get it for you since he has been to their parking lot.  Then ask Big-Mig for some diagrams.  Finally, don't work with ee-tom or you will win the IgNobel.

That is all.

What was the lie?

He was putting in a production line to produce powders.

Are the powders up to spec? That's not been addressed here..

 

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?

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?

Do you really think that the private placement would have gone anywhere if the investors did not believe that he was extremely close to producing working EESUs? He had to have known that he was misleading them or that he was telling deliberate lies. He is either lying or committing fraud by omission (failing to inform them they were drawing false conclusions). This is why it was necessary to release the recording to cause a market spike and permit those investors to exit at a profit to avoid being sued. Whether it is a lie, fraud by omission or otherwise hardly depends on who he thought would hear what he said.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

...

© 2014   Created by B.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service