Talk:Dielectric

message: Surely the E-field is directed from the positive charge to the negative one? The article states that "Note that the dipole moment is shown to be pointing in the same direction as the electric field.", which means that the dipole moment is also directed the wrong way around (it points from - to +)!--193.157.137.193 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See electric dipole moment for direction. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong direction for E-field

message: In a dry transformer, is air the dielectric medium? As I understand it, a dieletric acts as a bad conductor of electric current but conducts magnetic fields well.
A "dry transformer" is simply a transformer that contains no oil. Various other dielectric materials are used instead - these may include electrical varnish or epoxy resins in addition to paper, enamel wire insulation, etc. During transformer manufacture, fluid varnish or epoxy is often forced into the transformer (called vacuum impregnation), and is then hardened in place by baking. This process is used to remove small air gaps near the windings in order to prevent corona formation particularly in higher voltage/power transformers. However, these suplemental dielectrics play no part in helping to conduct magnetic flux since their relative permeability is usually about 1 (similar to that of air). Bert 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dry transformer

message: If the presence of a dielectric (E >1) can distort an electric field, does the presence of a ferromagnetic material (U>1) distort a magnetic field from a magnet. If so, what do iron filings do to the magnetic field when spread around a bar magnet? 8-?--Light current 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric and magnetic fields- whats the difference? 

message: I have made a correction to the definition of a dielectric in the introduction. Also, I excised this paragraph which is both poorly-phrased technically and somewhat misleading. 
   Electrically, the dielectric constant is a measure of the extent to which a substance concentrates the electrostatic lines of flux. More specifically it is the ratio of the amount of electrical energy stored in an insulator, when a static electric field is imposed across it, relative to vacuum (which has a dielectric constant of 1). Thus, the dielectric constant is also known as the static permittivity.
:Yeah I noticed.  I put it back. Rewrite if you wish, but lets keep the info 8-)--Light current 19:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please sign and date your posts by typing  ~~~~ . THanks. THen we can talk--Light current 12:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I added an external link on dielectric properties of polymers. I had this there before but in html so it had some marketing-ese in it and it got deleted. I found the .pdf so now it is all technical. I know it would be great to include some of the ideas and then just link but I can't do that (not enough experience in this area.) Hope this is OK Rsteif 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link on dielectric properties of polymers 

message: "also called the static permittivity or dielectric constant εs"
Does anybody else realize that this is whack? Click the link for dielectric constant, and you'll be linked to an article that includes a phrase "also known as relative permittivity". So... by somebody's logic... static permittivity = relative permittivity. Sweet.
Also, if there is some technicality here that I'm not understanding, perhaps there needs to be some sort of disambiguation going on that might clarify the relationship between these two quantities.
69.156.153.12 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static Permittivity = Relative Permittivity? 

message: I have proposed this article should be merged one way or the other with electrical insulation.  The two terms are essentially synonyms.  Oli Filth 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I am starting to completley re-write this article if anyone wishs to help, even if it is just to check what I write make sense just leave your user name underneath and I will contact you when I make a change. People checking my SPAG (Spelling, punctuation and grammer) most welcome :-)
Timwilson85 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 4th section: '... permitivity of free space' -- that should be 'permittivity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.113.244.86  (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2008
--"So fix it dear Liza, dear Liza.  So fix it dear Liza, fix it."  Get with the wiki program and make the change yourself.  That is the whole point.  You are empowered to make the change yourself.  Isn't it grand?  By the way, I went ahead and fixed it for you.
--158.35.225.228 (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: Can somebody please add a paragraph about this aspect of dielectrics?--83.105.33.91 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dielectric Absorption 

message: "Whewell considered "dia-electric", from the Greek "dia" meaning "opposed in moment", since an electric field passes through the material but felt that "dielectric" was easier to pronounce." - I don't think that "through" is a very sensible translation of the "dia-" prefix in this context. I'm fairly certain that an electric field doesn't pass through an insulator. Also, not that I agree with, but, a couple dictionaries cite the etymology of "dielectric" as "di- + electric" rather than "dia- + electric". Fuzzform (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: This article is largley unsourced. Please add reference Bastien.roucaries (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this article mainly contain standard material, covered in lots of textbooks ? I agree that this article needs work, but I don't think references ought to be a major concern. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: What do you think about creating a new article about dielectric relaxation ? Bastien.roucaries (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a good idea. I look forward to your edits. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dielectric relaxation new article 

message: The first sentence in this article says,
  A dielectric is an electrical insulator that can be polarized by an applied electric field.
This phrasing suggests that there are electrical insulators that are not dielectrics: i.e., that there are electrical insulators which *cannot* be polarized by application of an electric field.  The article has examples of materials that are dialectrics, but I think it would benefit from some examples of materials that are not dielectrics. Draconx (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's *not* a dielectric? 

message: Dielectric relaxation is described as a "delay (or lag) in the dielectric constant". Does this make sense? Is the dielectric constant changing, or is it the polarization? Is relaxation a delay, or it rather a process that causes a delay? I would write, if it is scientifically correct:
:Dielectric relaxation is the process whereby dipole charges move to their polarized (or less polarized) positions in response to a changing electric field in a dielectric medium (e.g., inside capacitors or between two large conducting surfaces). This does not occur instantaneously, but causes a momentary delay (or lag) in the adjustment of the polarization to match the electric field. This delay is called the dielectric relaxation time.
I don't know what to do about the reference to "molecular polarization". Does this mean that the concept of dielectric relaxation is generally only applied (or relevant) to molecular (distortion) polarization, as opposed to other polarization effects that are mentioned earlier in the article, such as dipolar polarization, ionic polarization and electronic polarization, with their very different cutoff frequencies?
In the second paragraph, dielectric relaxation is defined as a form of relaxation that occurs at microwave frequencies. From earlier in the article, this is the frequency cutoff for dipolar polarization, not molecular polarization. Why has the relevant frequency range changed? Is dielectric relaxation now a different phenomenon at a new typical frequency?
Hemming's law seems to be out of place -- it introduces a highly specific formula, but without really explaining the underlying phenomenon. 
I didn't make any changes because I don't know the science at an expert level. 84.227.226.188 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dielectric relaxation section needs work

message: I don't understand the sentence "Ionic polarization causes the ferroelectric effect as well as dipolar polarization". How are ionic polarization and dipolar polarization related? I though the mechanism were different. 84.227.226.188 (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ionic polarization causes dipolar polarization?

message: How does the phenomenon described in the section entitled "paraelectricity" differ from the linear polarization response {\mathbf P}=\varepsilon_0\chi_{\text{e}}{\mathbf E}  that one expects to see in many dielectrics? It is described in many articles. If so, shouldn't the connection be made that this is really the same phenomenon? 84.227.226.188 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In  Ferroelectricity#Polarization it states that paraelectric means a certain kind of nonlinearity. I couldn't remotely get this from the section in the current article. I made a link, at least. 84.227.226.188 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraelectricity versis linear polarization response

message: This section is way too technical! It leaps out from the page!! I understand the achievement described is worthy but still, this level of specificity shouldn't be here. 
Also, what does the definition mean: "Tunable dielectrics are insulators whose ability to store electrical charge changes when a voltage is applied" ? Is it the susceptibility (and hence the capacitance, i.e. ability to store charge per electric field strength) that changes? In this case, it's just the same as saying that the response of polarization P to electric field E is nonlinear. But surely something more specific than that is being claimed. Engineering usefulness comes from specific shapes of nonlinearity, not just linearity in general. 84.227.226.188 (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tunability section

message: To the main editors: I wonder if the following sentence, the 3rd in the 1st paragraph of the article, "Because of dielectric polarization, positive charges are displaced TOWARD THE FIELD and..." is complete enough. Should not it said "toward the NEGATIVE SIDE of the field...", or something like that? Even if the sentence is correct and clearly understandable for people with knowledge, could it be modified for clarification and fixing any doubt in people lacking that knowledge? Thank you for considering the request. Pmronchi (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete explanation? 

message: The first paragraph says "for example, if the field is moving in the positive x-axis, the negative charges will shift in the negative x-axis" (emphasis mine). I am not schooled in this subject, but is this perhaps a misstatement of "for example, if the field is oriented in the positive x-axis, the negative charges will shift in the negative x-axis"? Meaning, the field in that example isn't "moving", the author only meant to emphasize the direction of the field lines? Given the importance of moving/changing electric fields and the frequency with which they are discussed, this language is confusing. I would change it myself but I'm not qualified to make the determination. Chconnor (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph "field is moving" -> "field is oriented" ? 

message: The "Tyvek" page links to the "Dielectric" page for "dielectric bonding" but there is nothing about it here.
(Tyvek: Section: Scientific characteristics and properties - Adhesion and bonding -  "Dielectric bonding can be effective in some circumstances ...")
Please would someone knowledgeable add this information ? Darkman101 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dielectric Bonding ?