News from EEStor/ZENN sounds promising

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:11 am

It seems they have got very high permittivity with a regular powder and high voltage without loss of permittivity with their special pure powder, but at a lower permittivity level.
Now Dick Weir just has to combine the two....

See http://www.marketwatch.com/story/zenn-m ... 2012-09-12

Jded · Post by **Jded** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:21 am

These are extremely bad news. Skeptics at theeestory were saying for many years that you can have high permittivity and low breakdown/saturation, or low permittivity and high breakdown/saturation, but you can't have them both high (and thus high ED), because the actual physical limit is connected to the ED itself.

Pretty much like you can pour the water into the bucket quickly with a wide stream, or you can pour it slowly so that it fills for extended amount of time without overfilling, but you cannot "simply combine" big stream with long time to get more water into the same bucket.

Now EEstor essentialy confirmed that they only hope to connect the two somehow, but never actually did. Which basically means that Weir & co. were heavily misguided from the beginning.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:10 pm

Jded,
Sounds promising to me.

... the level of permittivity achieved in the layers without CMBT is unprecedented and appears to represent a significant breakthrough in dielectric materials -- the fact that permittivity of the layer with CMBT was maintained across a broad voltage range is a positive achievement as to date higher permittivity dielectric materials have shown significant declines in permittivity as voltage is increased. Declines are generally observable above permittivity levels of 50. Dielectric materials with a permittivity above 600 have all shown material declines in permittivity as voltage is increased. While the tested layer at a permittivity of 1000 is a long way from the 100,000 level in the current layers, it is a positive indicator of the performance of EESU layers where the CMBT has been added and is an important technological step. It remains to be seen whether the layers will maintain their permittivity when voltage is increased at permittivity levels well in excess of 1000 -- the consistency and characteristics of the CMBT appear to be at a level of purity not previously attained. Original purity levels were previously certified by EEStor through a third party in 2009. -- the observed leakage rates are extremely compelling for energy storage applications -- the plant employs advanced technologies and appears to be easily scalable Overall Mr. Galvagni expressed his excitement in what he saw.

Mr. Galvagni was one of the previous critics at the eestory posting as Capman.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:45 pm

Jded wrote:These are extremely bad news. Skeptics at theeestory were saying for many years that you can have high permittivity and low breakdown/saturation, or low permittivity and high breakdown/saturation, but you can't have them both high (and thus high ED), because the actual physical limit is connected to the ED itself.

Pretty much like you can pour the water into the bucket quickly with a wide stream, or you can pour it slowly so that it fills for extended amount of time without overfilling, but you cannot "simply combine" big stream with long time to get more water into the same bucket.

Now EEstor essentialy confirmed that they only hope to connect the two somehow, but never actually did. Which basically means that Weir & co. were heavily misguided from the beginning.

Well, its good and bad.

They have shown 10J/cc. That is 1000X less than originally claimed. It is about equal to the highest ceramic lab samples around.

What is interesting is that if they have linear response at the values they claim (polarization up to 0.4C/m^2) it pretty well knocks out standard ionic polarization.

Now, what galvagni is not thinking, because rooted in convetional cap industry rather than research, is that IBLCs have been giving highly linear response and very very high k for a long time, at v low ED, in labs. This is IBLC, but with higher ED. There is nothing theoretically impossible about this, but it has not been seen before. The theoretical limits to ED now are different, and we can hope to go higher than this 10J/cc because of that. How much higher? Well 10X is a good bet - by increasing field but keeping polarization constant. If that is possible without screwing up leakage.
100X can't be ruled out, but is unlikely
1000X ? very very unlikely.

These results show pretty conclusively that EEStor never had what they claimed.

Also, the 10J/cc has a self-discharge time of 2 minutes. So leakage is a big issue. The original claims were for ultra-low leakage with self-discharge of 10 years +.

But leakage may be soluble. Or it may not!

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:21 pm

Also, the 10J/cc has a self-discharge time of 2 minutes.

How do you figure that?

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:20 pm

parallel wrote:
Also, the 10J/cc has a self-discharge time of 2 minutes.
How do you figure that?

OK it was approximate.

275 seconds assuming 25mmX25mm layer. It must be 25um thick from field and voltage spec.

time = C*V/I

I=1uA
C=0.22uF
V=1250V

Discharge will be a bit longe rthan this, all we have is leakage over range < 1uA. But it will be of this order.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:36 pm

tomclarke,
The data is not sufficient to do a calculation. For example <.1uA could be 0.01 or indeed 0.
You're just making stuff up.
You could have said > 2 min. Nice and meaningless too.

Tom's Law. No new invention can possibly work. 99% of scientists say so.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:53 pm

parallel wrote:tomclarke,

Tom's Law. Nothing new can ever work. 99% of scientists say so.

Actually I think you read to much skepticism into Tom's post.
If they could take the leakage down by a factor then you have a usable commercial product in the power condition/ups Fields. That is not a small market.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:10 pm

paperburn1 wrote:
parallel wrote:tomclarke,

Tom's Law. Nothing new can ever work. 99% of scientists say so.
Actually I think you read to much skepticism into Tom's post.
If they could take the leakage down by a factor then you have a usable commercial product in the power condition/ups Fields. That is not a small market.

There is certainly the potential for a better than now product because this is a ceramic capacitor, it will have high power density. So if they can get ED say 100J/cc, which might be possible, it would have unique characteristics.

As for leakage I would not read too much into it. It might be a big problem to reduce. It might not.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:47 pm

It means that EEStor has lied for a very long time. Also there was no third party verification. It is the old EEStor song and dance routine pushing all the hope and dream buttons. One might ask what was the purpose of not mixing the two substances? What a surprise that they didn't for the dog and pony show! Want to bet the results were very bad? These guys are crooks. Buy into this stunt and join in with the wackos.

And how long have they been at this game? Now they are going to suddenly get 10x, 100x performance? EEStor just needed more money, hence the latest fakery. Same MO.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:25 pm

mvanwink5 wrote:It means that EEStor has lied for a very long time. Also there was no third party verification. It is the old EEStor song and dance routine pushing all the hope and dream buttons. One might ask what was the purpose of not mixing the two substances? What a surprise that they didn't for the dog and pony show! Want to bet the results were very bad? These guys are crooks. Buy into this stunt and join in with the wackos.

And how long have they been at this game? Now they are going to suddenly get 10x, 100x performance? EEStor just needed more money, hence the latest fakery. Same MO.

Well, PRs have never said they have ever had anything. just a patent idiots believe. But it does not inspire confidence.
I agree, no strong reason to suppose they can do better than they have now, still it is possible.

But not 1000X

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:22 pm

What is the chance that dishonest people will do the impossible? Claiming the impossible is normal for the dishonest though. What I would believe is that somebody suddenly "finds" something "significant" then claims they "might" achieve faster than light transport, this is a typical scamming technique. Stupid people fall for that kind of leap. Further to entertain "possibilities" only encourages their irrational hopes. Just saying...

This EEStor only dangles BS when they need more money, just as they just did. What a surprise! And look at the dupes fall for it again.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:56 pm

Really, there are still people that care about EEStor? After years of broken promise, I thought that nobody really cared anymore what BS they release to the press.

Jded · Post by **Jded** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:22 am

parallel wrote:Jded,
Sounds promising to me.

For replacing some of the current capacitors, yes. Batteries, no.

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:18 pm

Warp drive sounds promising too, not for replacing the automobile, but perhaps, maybe, it might be possible sometime, maybe, for replacing existing interstellar space transports. No one has proven otherwise.