From: Doug ([email protected])
Date: Thu Jun 15 2000 - 22:31:52 PDT
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Does this mean that for a material with a
> lattice structure, the dielectric loss for
> the material is a function of the direction
> of electric field? The dipole would be
> rotated by different angles depending on
> the direction of the electric field, using
> the alignment theory.
I don't know. This sounds like an analogy to
the Hall effect. Dielectrics imply bound charges.
Bound charges imply great insulators. Electric
fields have a redistributive effect in dielectrics
at a local level. Thus the reason for low conductivity.
The charges don't migrate globally throughout the
structure due to an applied electric field. Otherwise,
you'd have current as in copper.
I forgot with my initial post that there's three
mechanisms for dielectricity:
electric - redistributing charge,
ionic - redistributing ions, and
orientational - redistributing orbits.
But lattice structures in general imply all sorts of
structures. Copper for one, and diamond for another.
Two entirely different electrical properties.
Barium titanate has an epsilon of about 1,200.
Nylon 8. Mica about 6. Bakelite about 5.
Quartz is about 5 but also hard rubber is 5.
I would think quartz has a great lattice but
then why have the same epsilon as rubber?
And is there an axis of dielectric susceptibility?
And is any one of the three mechanisms for dielectricity
any more capable of an axis of dielectric susceptibility
than any of the other two? I guess there's no reason to
deny it, but someone more in the know would have to say.
Hmmm ... Probably a good discussion for a solid
stater group.
Regards, Doug McKean
**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
[email protected]. In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 10:50:39 PST