|WikiProject Physics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010)|
The reference to “the capacitor” in the first paragraph of the page seems out of context, would anyone be able to clarify this? I do agree with the general consensus that this page is in need of an overhaul. --Enghoff 05:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- ferroelectric capacitors do exist. They differ from ordinary capacitors in that they have tunable capacitance (see Ferroelectric#Applications). Furthermore, they have very high permittivities / dielectric constants. --Nathaniel (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Piezoelectric effect redirects to piezoelectricity, and pyroelectric effect redirects to pyroelectricity, but ferroelectricity redirects to ferroelectric effect. These should all be consistent. The "-ity" sounds rather odd to me, and I think " effect" is better. Any opinions? –radiojon 15:01, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should bring it up on wikipedia:naming conventions. I'd vote for "piezoelectric" etc. myself, for easy linking. These are often used as both nouns and adjectives, and all "proper" forms can be made by appending a few letters (such as "ity", "ally", etc.) outside the link.--Joel 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
QUESTION: Why can you change the polarization direction of a ferroelectric material using an external electrical field, but not the polarization direction of a pyro or piezoelectric material? What occurs in these materials that causes the dipoles to be fixed/unfixed? AND why do many ferroelectric materials have such high nonlinearities and dielectric constants? Is it related to Kerr Effect or Pockels Effect?
HELP ME EDIT THIS ARTICLE: To some degree I have the technical knowledge to improve it(and at the very least I personally know people who are very well known in the field), but I am a noob and I really don't want to to do this alone. If you write well, and know a lot about posting on Wikipedia I would like to work together to rewrite this page. Please contact me-
TheDeuce1123 PS. I still dont know how to do time stamps LOL!
Here are some more ideas for dealing with moderately or highly technical subjects:
- The most accessible parts of the article should be up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first.
- Add a concrete example. Many technical articles are inaccessible (and more confusing even to expert readers) only because they are abstract.
- Add a picture. Many people learn better, and many technical concepts are communicated better, through visual depictions, rather than words or symbols. Diagrams should be related to symbolic or verbal descriptions where appropriate.
- Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed).
Holy hell. What is it about "experts" that makes them write so inaccessibly? (Bryan - I'm-a talkin' 'bout YOU. Among others.) This article is only even VAGUELY comprehensible to OTHER people outside the (broad) field of expertise.
I have an Ivy-League MBA AND have studied AI and networking theory (at the graduate level) at Stanford and Penn ("oooh!....aaahhhh!"). I'm working on mesoscale microchemical reactors. I'm pretty damned technical, for someone outside this field -- and I couldn't get mental traction on this stupid, jargon-laden, inaccessible, P.O.S. Wikipedia entry.
LOOK: write an introductory paragraph that your grandma would understand. "Ferroelectric materials (do this). That's interesting because of (that). People use them for (this kind of thing, and that). They're interesting in the fields of (foo, bar, and blah -- because they yadda, fing, and plugh).
Einstein wrote a very nice, brief, and COMPREHENSIBLE to the layman - summary of both general and special relativity. It's on my bookshelf - it's probably less than 1/2" thick. I understand it.
If you nerd-nuts can't match him - it's a comment on YOUR abilities and intelligence. Not OURS.
A Doon 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"I have an Ivy-League MBA" <- I think I just found your problem. This is a Solid State Physics Topic and as such should be written to a high level. Leave the science to the scientists.
Hi, all! I am working on a ferroelectric actually right now- BSTO its a common one. It has an appreciable ferroelectric effect. The permittivity can be tuned by about 40% depending on the film. I actually agree that this article is not well written. It takes a very practical perspective instead of talking about how the physics manifests itself in the material. When this article is rewritten I think it would be a good idea to discuss this effect in terms of maxwell's equations and then show so physical data on say BSTO. I also think that all the effects should be discussed in terms of permittivity. Ferroelectrics, Paraelectrics, Antiferroelectrics etc (all the elecrtrics) should be under the main article of permittivity, which should then link to the different types of tunability. The are a couple people I know of that would be good experts to talk to if anyone is interested you can contact me and I can give you their email address. Also, because I am a noob I dont know how to do all the fancy editing but I would glad to help with this article.
TheDeuce1123 1:42, 20 July 2007-
PS. How do you do time stamps?
The Duece, Can you explain for me the term "ferroelectric"? What kind materials are we dealing with? I cannot wrap that prefix around my head. Ferromagnetic I can comprehend. I don't believe electromagnetism is fully understood, otherwise this word would not exist. Could the effects seen in mechanism/definition of this word be more related to reactions/response of the nucleus of the atoms, as apposed to the electron function alone? It seems they note a spontaneous generation of effects. The spontaneity alludes to an electric and magnetic moment that would unify the two. A moment that could only occur in a unipolar or monopolar event. Do we really know how electricity works? Wikipedia states there is no iron involved, so why is the prefix utilized? It just does not apply if iron is not a component in the generation of electricity. I was searching through info on the hysteresis loop and came across ferroelectric. Of course I had to check it out, but it is very misleading. Can you help me clear my head?
Graph that is labeled paraelectric polarization should IMO be labeled superparaelectric polarization. I have never seen such a response from any of paraelectrics that I investigated. Above thier respective Curie points they all behave like in graph labeled here "dielectric polarization". And adding yet another penny - ferroelectrics are dielectrics too. Although quite strange.
Now I have seen behavior that is labeled here as paraelectric - it was in material in which size effect caused vanishing of ferroelectric phase. And it has been shown in quite an array of other materials too, but always labeled superparaelectric. Jarosław Komar (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
How strong is the effect in layman's terms?
For example, if you maximally "electrize" two pieces of real-world ferroelectric material of such a size that they can be held in your two hand - would you feel an attraction or repulsion, just like with magnets? Or is the effect much weaker? Can you add this or similar "layman" information to the article? -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)