MSimon wrote:The difference between EEStor and Polywell is that Polywell is based on known physics (the fusion side is not in doubt - just the losses). And every one says that overcoming the losses (which may or may not be done) is the key.
Where as EEStor is based on overcoming dielectric saturation. There are no published curves on capacitance vs voltage.
So I'm sceptical of Polywell and EEStor. I do have some faith in the Navy. There is no comparable organization watching EEStor.
Well..., I found some curves of capacitance versus voltage. I'm not sure these small voltages are relevant and I'm not sure how the capacitance and dispersion interplay. And the capacitance dropped in all examples but one as the voltage was increased ( tens of volts). I doubt any of this has any relevance, except that departures from rated values may need to be considered in electrical designs.
How much improvement would be needed for capacitors to match lithium batteries as an energy storage device? [edit] Answered my own question, see the second link.
The problem is that each of those capacitors has its own graph, and the chances of the EEStore device matching any of them is pretty small. Its that graph, but for the EESU, that we are all interested in, and that would resolve the controversy. I'd love to see them be an actual working device, but by this point they should have, at the least, the Black Box demo unit that MSimon has suggested.
Typical commercial solid dielectric (bulk-mode storage) 1J/cc max
Best possible solid dielectric 50J/cc
Best current Dl dielectric (completely different tech from eestor) 100J/cc?
Theoretical limit at Eestor claimed field: 400J/cc
Eestor claims 10,000J/cc.
Eestor gets this figure on the basis that (it claims) capacitance does not change with voltage. This "fact" is assumed in an early patent.
It is apparently justified by a table of measurements in a subsequent patent which show <1% change in er over full field range of dielectric.
This ultra-linearity is never explained, but is required if eestor's claims are true. It breaks the normally understood limits for intra-lattice polarisation by a factor of 100 or so.
Eestor claim their high k high breakdown CMBT is based on a known high-k formulation by Hansen which exists and has, as all BatiO3-based ceramics, highly nonlinear C/V curve with saturation at very low field. Eestor claims to have made this CMBT very high breakdown voltage (possible, prior art demonstrates this).
Eestor recently announced permittivity measurements of their dielectric at low field, claiming that this was a predictor for energy density because the dielectric was linear and the breakdown voltage is known to be high.
tomclarke wrote:Typical commercial solid dielectric (bulk-mode storage) 1J/cc max
Best possible solid dielectric 50J/cc
Best current Dl dielectric (completely different tech from eestor) 100J/cc?
Theoretical limit at Eestor claimed field: 400J/cc
Eestor claims 10,000J/cc.
Eestor gets this figure on the basis that (it claims) capacitance does not change with voltage. This "fact" is assumed in an early patent.
It is apparently justified by a table of measurements in a subsequent patent which show <1% change in er over full field range of dielectric.
This ultra-linearity is never explained, but is required if eestor's claims are true. It breaks the normally understood limits for intra-lattice polarisation by a factor of 100 or so.
Eestor claim their high k high breakdown CMBT is based on a known high-k formulation by Hansen which exists and has, as all BatiO3-based ceramics, highly nonlinear C/V curve with saturation at very low field. Eestor claims to have made this CMBT very high breakdown voltage (possible, prior art demonstrates this).
Eestor recently announced permittivity measurements of their dielectric at low field, claiming that this was a predictor for energy density because the dielectric was linear and the breakdown voltage is known to be high.
Sigh.
Best wishes, Tom
I'm short on theoretical undrstanding, but I intreprete your numbers as saying EESTOR claimes a 100 fold improvment, or more over any published capacitor capacities, a leap of faith by any measure.
100 X is a big number when people have been trying hard to increase capacitor energy density. However when comparing their claims with best equivalents in apparently similar technology the number is nearer 10,000X!
Unlike BLP etc it does not sound unreasonable to make a better capacitor - free energy storage versus free energy. But high density capacitive energy storage is difficult.
I agree. If EEStor was a viable technology I'd expect capacitor companies would be working feverishly to work around the patents or defeating them with "prior art" claims or buying licenses.
None of that has happened.
It is of course not definitive proof. It is quite suggestive.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Zenn now makes low-speed electric vehicles, but in an apparent shift in strategy, Zenn Chief Executive Ian Clifford said on Tuesday the company no longer plans to distribute or sell its own highway-capable electric vehicle, partly due to an increasingly competitive market.
"The way things have really changed over the last year -- there have been such dramatic shifts and focus on electric vehicles -- it doesn't make a lot of business sense for us to go into the distribution and sale of the vehicle," he said.
There is no car because there is no EEStor EESU. Stick a fork in 'em.
Proof scareduck? or are you well.....scared?
The proof is the change of plans. If the EEStor is for real, their exclusive license should be worth a mint.
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.
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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.