EEStor news

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:31 pm

MSimon wrote:
Warthog wrote:
Dan Tibbets wrote:

I'm short on theoretical understanding, but I interpret your numbers as saying EESTOR claims a 100 fold improvement, or more over any published capacitor capacities, a leap of faith by any measure.

Dan Tibbets


I haven't followed EESTOR, nor am I sufficiently qualified in physics to address the theoretical permittivity issue, but there are MANY proven cases over the last few years where nanostructured materials have exhibited 10X-100X improvements over bulk properties of various sorts.

The good thing about science is that the truth ALWAYS is eventually rooted out.


Sure. And you think other capacitor mfgs. are not hard at work on it?

The bulk material BaTi (for short) is very common in the industry.


Eestor's patents do not describe a nano-structured material. It is true there is active work squeezing storage out of ultra-thin films (a few nm). Eestor specify 640nm particles coated with 10nm alumina. The surface area is not high enough for surface effect storage to be significant.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:17 am

Too lazy to figure it out and too dumb to keep my mouth shut....But,
sub micron spheres with even thinner insulating/ dielectric layers would add alot more surface area than -eg: 10 micron aluminum sheets with 10 micron mylar dielectric layers between. How much more storage? Um, to much math, but I suspect at least several hundred times. I don't know if alumina in such thin layers could insulate enough. Also, unless the spheres are actually pressed into a single sheet which is then insulated from the next sheet in the conventional manner, how you could have useful charge seperation, storage and recovery? If the spheres are pressed into a single sheet, I could see them increasing the surface area some without thickening the layer much (sort of like using a waffled or porus surface to increase surface area), but I then see the gain as being only modest.


Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Warthog
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:43 pm
Location: Fox Island, WA

Postby Warthog » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:07 am

"Sure. And you think other capacitor mfgs. are not hard at work on it?
The bulk material BaTi (for short) is very common in the industry."

Re-read what I said about the improvement of nanostructured materials over bulk. 100X improvements over bulk properties are NOT uncommon these days. As to whether other capacitor companies are working on it, I have no way to know, and neither do you. It's called "proprietary information". I worked in R&D for many years for one of the biggest US chemical companies and I know that such research is NOT published, talked about, or information released until it is legally protected. It used to amuse me greatly to go to conferences and hear papers by academics about their "great new research", much of which had already been done by industry, but never published.

But, as I said---the truth WILL come out eventually. EESTOR will either produce a product, or they won't.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:33 am

Warthog wrote:"Sure. And you think other capacitor mfgs. are not hard at work on it?
The bulk material BaTi (for short) is very common in the industry."

Re-read what I said about the improvement of nanostructured materials over bulk. 100X improvements over bulk properties are NOT uncommon these days. As to whether other capacitor companies are working on it, I have no way to know, and neither do you. It's called "proprietary information". I worked in R&D for many years for one of the biggest US chemical companies and I know that such research is NOT published, talked about, or information released until it is legally protected. It used to amuse me greatly to go to conferences and hear papers by academics about their "great new research", much of which had already been done by industry, but never published.

But, as I said---the truth WILL come out eventually. EESTOR will either produce a product, or they won't.


The research is being done even if only for defensive purposes. Can I be absolutely certain? No. My confidence interval is >95% though.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:53 am

D Tibbets wrote:Too lazy to figure it out and too dumb to keep my mouth shut....But,
sub micron spheres with even thinner insulating/ dielectric layers would add alot more surface area than -eg: 10 micron aluminum sheets with 10 micron mylar dielectric layers between. How much more storage? Um, to much math, but I suspect at least several hundred times. I don't know if alumina in such thin layers could insulate enough. Also, unless the spheres are actually pressed into a single sheet which is then insulated from the next sheet in the conventional manner, how you could have useful charge seperation, storage and recovery? If the spheres are pressed into a single sheet, I could see them increasing the surface area some without thickening the layer much (sort of like using a waffled or porus surface to increase surface area), but I then see the gain as being only modest.


Dan Tibbets


Well, here are the numbers.

capacitative storage is a bulk volumetric issue:
energy = integral (E.P+e0E.E)dv where P is polarization. E is field. If er >> 1 you simplify to:
integral(E.P).

The point is that Emax and P(Emax) are properties of dielectric locally, so you need good dielectric to get good energy density - you can't get round it.

Nanomaterials do better purely because surfaces can have much better properties than bulk, Emax can be much higher for a 1nm surface than is possible for bulk. This BTW is why DL capacitors (ultracapacitors) have much better energy density than ceramic.

For this to work you need a very high volumetric density of surfaces, where the thickness of a surface is typically 1nm or less.

640nm spheres with 10nm thick (20 lattice cells, which is too many for proper nano effects - you expect these on order of 1 cell) gives surface area 5% of total. Assuming 1nm thick 0.5%.

So whetever nanoproperties exist, this structure dilutes them by 20-200X.

=> no-one in right minds would use this structure to get high energy density if mechanism is nano-effects.

You might also imagine some quantum effect where normally local interactions spread out through the lattice (like superconductivity). In this case very high fields kill any such effects in BaTiO3. It is in any case very hard to so how such effects (quantum coherence across lattice cells) could effect something is brute force as energy density.

You can never rule out weird and unanticipated things - but EEStor has published data which very considerable reduce the design space for possible weird thing solutions.

Best wishes, Tom

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:23 am

tomclarke wrote:Well, here are the numbers.

capacitative storage is a bulk volumetric issue:
energy = integral (E.P+e0E.E)dv where P is polarization. E is field. If er >> 1 you simplify to:
integral(E.P).

The point is that Emax and P(Emax) are properties of dielectric locally, so you need good dielectric to get good energy density - you can't get round it.

Nanomaterials do better purely because surfaces can have much better properties than bulk, Emax can be much higher for a 1nm surface than is possible for bulk. This BTW is why DL capacitors (ultracapacitors) have much better energy density than ceramic.

For this to work you need a very high volumetric density of surfaces, where the thickness of a surface is typically 1nm or less.

640nm spheres with 10nm thick (20 lattice cells, which is too many for proper nano effects - you expect these on order of 1 cell) gives surface area 5% of total. Assuming 1nm thick 0.5%.

So whetever nanoproperties exist, this structure dilutes them by 20-200X.

=> no-one in right minds would use this structure to get high energy density if mechanism is nano-effects.

You might also imagine some quantum effect where normally local interactions spread out through the lattice (like superconductivity). In this case very high fields kill any such effects in BaTiO3. It is in any case very hard to so how such effects (quantum coherence across lattice cells) could effect something is brute force as energy density.

You can never rule out weird and unanticipated things - but EEStor has published data which very considerable reduce the design space for possible weird thing solutions.

Best wishes, Tom



OK, I'll have to take your word for it about your nanopartical scale.
My impression is that capacitor energy storage density is dependant upon the conductive surface( plate, sponge or electrolyte, separated by a dielectric (insulator) that can resist the voltage between oppositely charged plates. The capacity goes up with area, and perhaps more importantly inversely with the thickness of the dielectric. I think this is basically what you are saying about the dielectric. Any decrease in the size of the strands of a sponge like material will increase the surface area with a surrounding electrolyte (with a dielectric between). At some point the required thickness of the dielectric would become the limiting factor, stalling any more shrinkage. A comparison could be made with a lung. The numerous tiny alveoli sacks greatly increases the aviable surface area for gas exchange, but has a pratical limit based on the membrane thickness, capollary thickness, and the space required for the air channels- or the current carrying elements in a capacitor.
This quote from the link below gives a simple explanation for 'ultracapacitor'

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 728AABATtW

"In an electrolytic capacitor, the electrolyte is effectively one of the electrodes, and an oxide film is formed between the electrolyte and the other plate. That gives you the capacitance and the dielectric function, too.

In an ultracapacitor, there is a (thin) film formed between each of the electrodes and the electrolyte. The thing that allows the ultracapacitor to reach such great numbers is that each of the electrodes has a greatly increased surface area, with which to react with the electrolyte. Think of the electrode as a sponge, and the electrolyte as water. The surface area of the sponge that is in contact with the water is many times greater than if the water contacted a flat plate of that same overall dimension. Such as it is, comparing a capacitor and an ultracapacitor."

This site shows some of the relationships between capacity, and breakdown voltages.

http://www.sentex.net/~mec1995/circ/hv/hvcap/hvcap.html

From my admittedly limited knowledge and shallow research, it sounds like the 'ultracapacitor ' description above is similar to what EESTOR is claiming. If the dielectric is alumina ( aluminum oxide) I wouldn't expect anything exotic in that regard, and surface area gains are probably similar to those described in the quotes above. Without shrinking dimensions to your described few nanometers scale, I don't see how the capacities could exceed what is already out there. Unless, the dielectric can withstand a lot more voltage, therefore proportionately greater joules. BaTi dielectric material could benefit the system some, but again I understand that it is also already in use.
So, my understanding is that if they are not lying, they must have something much different than what is in their patent. Basically, they must have some super dielectric that can resist high voltages with extremely thin layers. Either that, or they've discovered some new physics.


Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:19 pm

New article by the Globe & Mail here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le1312910/

Not much new. The deadline for starting delivery of EESUs to Zenn remains the end of this year.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:54 pm

Hmmm. Either they're doing one hell of a job keeping the secret or someone at Zenn is going to look very, very stupid in a couple months.

Toronto-based ZENN is so convinced that the science is sound that in June it exercised its right to raise its ownership stake, investing another $5-million on top of an original $2.5-million payment to secure a 10.7-per-cent ownership stake and exclusive rights to use the technology in small cars. It has also banked its entire future on the technology. Last month, ZENN said it would stop trying to manufacture its own cars – the pollution-free, low-speed vehicles that were hyped on television by comedian Rick Mercer – and instead focus on selling its EEStor-based drivetrain to industry leaders such as Toyota and Ford.

“I have high confidence that their storage technology will be successfully commercialized,” said ZENN chief executive officer Ian Clifford.


How much would YOU pay? But wait, there's more!

“But if EEStor doesn't do it, somebody else eventually will. It's technology that simply has to happen … if we're going to wean ourselves off oil and make the world habitable for future generations.”


Ummm...

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Wed Oct 07, 2009 12:39 pm

It seems that Zenn is still confident about the delivery date.

"Just so there is no debate about this, I also reached out to Zenn spokesperson Catherine Scrigemore to see how definite the companies agree this deadline to be.

"EEStor has publicly indicated an objective of delivering functional technology to ZMC by the end of the calendar year. ZMC is confident in their ability to meet that objective."

Set your alarms for December 31 2009, it may be that 2010 is the year of the EESU."

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/103 ... y-year-end

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:40 pm

$7.5M is a pretty big bet.

Interesting times ahead, one way or another.

joedead
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Manhattan, NY

Postby joedead » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:21 pm

More EEStor-related papers rising to the surface.

Attached is an article co-authored by Carl Nelson and Arthur Linz entitled, " Molecular Orbitals and Electron-Transfer Spectra in Rutile." This was Technical Report 184 in MIT's collection of reports for the Dept of Defense.

Submitted December 1963.

Notice too that TR 185 acknowledges contributions made by CW Nelson in the area of "feed preparation."


Can anyone here make heads or tails of this report?
(The report is a PDF attachment in the first post.)


http://theeestory.com/topics/3666

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:58 pm

I just skimmed the pdf file. Not obvious why a lot of these experiments were done, unless it was just curiosity to see what happened. It did show that Carl Nelson has worked in areas like the EESU for a long time and has considerable scientific knowledge.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:49 pm

Clifford is still apparently expecting delivery by year’s end…

"We're in the same waiting game as everybody else," says Clifford, founder and chief executive of Toronto-based ZENN Motor Company Inc.,

Clifford, who is waiting for EEStor to deliver that first commercial unit by the end of this year, says ZENN's future is riding on that delivery. "The entire aspect of our business model is dependent on EEStor commercializing that technology," he says. "The transformative moment is with the commercial proof, and then the whole tenor of the discussion changes to the excitement about the reality."

See the Toronto Star’s piece here: http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbr ... ar-battery

Note. Zenn's stock price does not show the same enthusiasm.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:49 pm

parallel wrote:Clifford is still apparently expecting delivery by year’s end…

"We're in the same waiting game as everybody else," says Clifford, founder and chief executive of Toronto-based ZENN Motor Company Inc.,

Clifford, who is waiting for EEStor to deliver that first commercial unit by the end of this year, says ZENN's future is riding on that delivery. "The entire aspect of our business model is dependent on EEStor commercializing that technology," he says. "The transformative moment is with the commercial proof, and then the whole tenor of the discussion changes to the excitement about the reality."

See the Toronto Star’s piece here: http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbr ... ar-battery

Note. Zenn's stock price does not show the same enthusiasm.


It is worth pointing out that Zenn has publicly abandoned all business except that dependent on EESUs (to tell the truth, they had none such that made profits). So for them to be not confident would be essentially saying they were likley to go out of business - not a message CEOs ever give until they have to.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Postby jgarry » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:00 am

http://theeestory.com/files/NASA_JSC-FOIA-09-255.PDF

Eestor is a scam, right? NASA? Lockheed? wtf?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests