Disclosure | Energy Storage Feeds

  • Male
  • London, England
  • United Kingdom

Technopete's Friends

  • wasabi
  • larry
  • Sammyn
  • Tomee
  • PeterP
  • Randy
  • AD2

Technopete's Groups

Technopete's Discussions

Aluminium Smelting as power load smoothing for the Smart Grid

Started this discussion. Last reply by student Dec 10, 2014. 16 Replies

OK, it looked safe enough to talk about Aluminium Smelting as part of Smart Grid, but now student wants to discuss it on the Isentropic forum too, and there is also the original discussion on Let's…Continue

Thermal Energy Storage - more from the UK Energy Storage Conference

Started Dec 1, 2014 0 Replies

At the UK Energy Storage conference at Warwick University, 25-27 November there was quite an emphasis on thermal energy storage.  This splits down into a number of types of which the main ones are…Continue

Norway [and Iceland] as a huge storage battery for Europe - UK Energy Storage Conference

Started this discussion. Last reply by Technopete Nov 30, 2014. 9 Replies

I attended UKES (the UK Energy Storage conference) at Warwick University 25-27 November 2014.  The most memorable presentation was that of Atle Harby on the capability of Norway to satisfy a large…Continue

Smart Grid

Started this discussion. Last reply by Technopete Dec 18, 2014. 52 Replies

To avoid hijacking the "Hockey Stick" any further.Regards,TPContinue

Gifts Received


Technopete has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift


Technopete's Page

Profile Information

Are you currently invested in Zenn Motor Company?
Do you understand that this website is not intended to provide you with legal, business or investment advice and that if you attempt to utilize it in that way, you are a fool?
Have you read & agreed with the Terms of Service?
It asks for your Full Name but you can use an alias if you like.
Where are EEStor headquarters?
Cedar Park TX
What are the prevailing energy storage materials used today?
lithium ion
What is the meaning of life?
To follow knowledge like a sinking star, beyond the utmost bounds of human thought.

Technopete's Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

Comment Wall (8 comments)

At 2:44pm on March 27, 2012, AD2 said…

Hi Pete. I go to London from time to time. Maybe we can meet up some day. I always thought I'd prefer to meet EE-Tom after the reveal though - so maybe we'll never get to catch up!

At 7:34pm on March 27, 2012, AD2 said…

Looks like I'm in London when it's a bad time for you. Oh well. I'll be back in the summer. Maybe that would be best anyway, as hopefully we will know what's what - and how real or otherwise EEStor's technology really is.

At 9:22pm on April 2, 2012, AD2 said…

Hey TP. Don't know if you are getting my messages on the Technopete "conversation" or not - this site is doing my head in. Anyway, in case you haven't got my last messages, my suggestion was that we should catch up after the next information dump by Zenn and EEStor. At least then we will know what we have to talk about and/or celebrate.



At 5:14pm on April 22, 2012, Jim said…
At 10:08am on June 9, 2012, Tomee said…

Hi Pete, Looks like we are there on a fri, sat, sun. Don't know how long you are around for on Fri , but we will be driving down from Edinburgh that morning. I was re -reading your suggestions for London. We are staying at the Mitre House Guesthouse.


BTW, that is me at the front of the surf board in the photos.


At 9:01pm on January 31, 2013, AD2 said…

Hey Technopete, where's EE-Tom gone?

At 7:42pm on July 6, 2013, PeterP said…

Hello TP,

There seems no point in holding a conversation on your thread where ee-tom and others are party to it and can make unhelpful commments.

ee-tom is banned! I don’t read threads where my name is taken in vain. In fact since 2008 and early 2009 I don’t take him seriously on Eestor related subjects at all.

It does seem you are quietly saying that 28 Jan PR layer A has a higher ED than predicted by the  formula in your thread, which uses macro-level parameters.

Yes, I would need very strong evidence before I would say or imply that a certified test house was incompetent or corrupt.

I accept the figures, however I also realise that DW is very careful about what he reveals. There is, for example, no way of determining from the PR whether multilayer devices were tested or not.

Nevertheless the macroscopic calculation must be correct (order of magnitude and refineable if needed), that is undisputable. It must be accepted and explained.


Your Theory:

However, if you start looking at BT/metal or BZ/metal nano-structures then a higher ED ought to be possible.  This is because the electric field across a very thin (nm) layer can be much higher than across a thick layer.  

The theoretical limit ought to be that you should be able to drop the band gap's worth of voltage (3 to 4 V = 3 to 4eV for BT) across a dielectric layer of any thickness (and more if the layer is thick).  However, if the layer is too thin (say <5nm) then the tunneling current will be too high.  It's not easy to work out the precise minimum thickness, 3V at 5nm would give you 600 MV/m field.

Theory says this thickness will be inversely proportional to the square root of the band gap (so going from 4eV to 8eV would allow you to work with 70% of the original thickness).

I don’t wish to disparage your theory or discourage you from pursuing it (though tunneling current does seem an obstacle). There may be nanoscale effects that allow high energy density. I don’t have sufficient knowledge in that area to comment.

My opinion is based on the patent. Dick Weir included his design calculations in the patent. As I see it Carl Nelson has provided him with a dielectric which has an effective permittivity of 18500 or whatever and he used it. At that stage Dick did not know exactly what Carl had done and he did not need to know. To initiate his calculations he made that silly calculation using the Hansen dielectric as a starting point. That must have been a mistake, if not then I would say they have nothing and if the dielectric guru (whoever he/she is) thought that was correct then they never will.


My reply was greater than 5000 characters and Ning would not accept it. I will try and post the rest below.





At 7:45pm on July 6, 2013, PeterP said…

Now Read on:



As far as the high polarisations goes, nanostructured devices can be used to trade average field for apparent polarisation - because you can do the equivalent of increasing the plate area so the real polarisation is unchanged but the measurement looks much higher.  But the field across the dielectric also now increases.  So that could explain DW's layer A polarisation, but would not explain a polarisation of 60 C/m^2 at a field of 350 or 500 MV/m.

The nanostructuring (which could be either built-in at creation, induced by polling, or dynamically created on charging) requires a combination of a metal and an insulator, which we do not appear to have with CMBT.

Nanostructuring will reduce the maximum energy density due to higher local fields reducing maximum average field strength. It may be useful as the etching of the plates in an aluminium electrolytic capacitor is useful.

I am not going down that path.

My position:

I agree that the maximum “lattice polarisation” is about 1.5 C/m^2. I have since 2008.

I am a simple person, I would not theorise about “what Dick has done” until I had looked at it thoroughly, so all I try to do is analyse the dielectric as described in the patent. When I do that I see space charge is formed and calculations show that 1xEESU energy density results.

It may be possible to show that there is a limit for “space charge polarization”. To me that is the next logical task after determining maximum lattice polarisation.  I have posted ideas and calculations on this.

I understand what “flux” is and I understand how to use Gauss’s theorem, I understand Laplace’s equation and can solve it numerically and by separation of variables. Likewise Poisson’s equation (although that is not really needed as field from a charge distribution is easily calculated). I have not studied DFT to any depth.


This reply is quite long, it is a measure of my “good faith” that I have spent time preparing it. You placed your message on my comment wall, I will do the same but that is not private. If you want privacy you should accept my “friend request”.



PS: Okay I see you have chosen to Moderate (presumably "vet") comments.

You need to be a member of TheEEStory to add comments!

Join TheEEStory



© 2015   Created by B.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service