Room-temperature superconductivity?

[GIThruster]

Why are we seeing the term "phase" here? It's not a phase, it'a a material and like all materials it exists in some specific phase. Without defining the phase, the point of using the term is lost on me.

Would I be correct in assuming you are referring to generic phases Solid/Liquid/Gas whereas I believe Johan is using the more specific materials science definition ...

Phase. A homogeneous portion of a system that has uniform physical and chemical characteristics.

As temperature reduces, solid materials change "phase." The most common example used is the phase diagram of Steel , where the physcial structure of the solid changes with temperature, for example between body-centred-cubic and face-centred-cubic.

Ben, I don't want to get lost in splitting hairs here. The term is either being used in an elliptical construction, or it is being used improperly. Perhaps it's common in the SC field to use the elliptical construction, but a phase is not a thing--it is a state of a thing, and so technically, without stating the thing or implying somewhere in the context, you cannot talk about a phase of a thing without the thing itself. As you said below, a phase is a portion of a system. If you don't say what the system is, you make no sense and we're talking about stipulating terms for a definition. This is no time to be vague or suffer poor English.

[johanfprins]

The following on just occured to me in response, but my niave layman's response is that we observe superconductors excluding magnetic fields. So why not electric fields being excluded by the same mechanism (what ever that is.) It "kind of" makes sense intuitively. Wasn't there commentary recently (not sure if it was this thread) about how physics education improperly teaches spearately about electric and magnetic fields when in fact they are inexorably interlinked.

The exclusion of the magnetic field and the electric fields are similar: Both fields are absorbed and decrease the density of charge-carriers. This is easily and simply calculated for both the metal superconductors and the ceramic superconductors. When the density of charge-carriers becomes too low, superconduction cannot be sustained. It is exactly for this reason why a superconductor has a maximum current when increasing the applied electric field.

And so some the charge is moved through the material by some other mechanism than an electric field.

This exactly the mechanism that I have found.

The previous mentioned analogy of url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle]Newtons Cradle[/url] comes to mind, whereas an electric field is like balls rolling down from the top of a slope.

In essense you have the mechanism. Very GOOD!!!!! Newton's cradle IS an analogy but NOT totally correct.

[johanfprins]

So, we have a definition?

Yes it is a correct definition but a "woolly" one without pointing out that this requires V=0 and thus the applied electric field to be cancelled within the superconductor.

[johanfprins]

Ben, I don't want to get lost in splitting hairs here. The term is either being used in an elliptical construction, or it is being used improperly. Perhaps it's common in the SC field to use the elliptical construction, but a phase is not a thing--it is a state of a thing, and so technically, without stating the thing or implying somewhere in the context, you cannot talk about a phase of a thing without the thing itself.

Then ALL the people who have received Nobel Prizes for superconductors must have been "elliptical" thinkers. They all write about a superconducting phase since this is exactly what it is. Maybe you are not wrong to classify them as being elliptical; but not for calling a phase a phase!

As you said below, a phase is a portion of a system. If you don't say what the system is, you make no sense and we're talking about stipulating terms for a definition. This is no time to be vague or suffer poor English.

I think you are the one who is splitting hairs at the moment. Everybody knows that a superconductor forms within a material when its valence-electrons forms a separate phase which makes superconduction through it possible. To say that it is a phase is thus not vague or poor English.

[BenTC]

It is exactly for this reason why a superconductor has a maximum current when increasing the applied electric field.

Could expand on this a bit. If the electric field is zero within the superconductor, how do you talk about increasing the "applied" electric field. Where is it applied to? I assume the increasing voltage would have to be taken up by the power supply internal resistance and the standard-cabling to the superconductor.

[GIThruster]

Ben, I don't want to get lost in splitting hairs here. The term is either being used in an elliptical construction, or it is being used improperly. Perhaps it's common in the SC field to use the elliptical construction, but a phase is not a thing--it is a state of a thing, and so technically, without stating the thing or implying somewhere in the context, you cannot talk about a phase of a thing without the thing itself.

Then ALL the people who have received Nobel Prizes for superconductors must have been "elliptical" thinkers. They all write about a superconducting phase since this is exactly what it is. Maybe you are not wrong to classify them as being elliptical; but not for calling a phase a phase!

As you said below, a phase is a portion of a system. If you don't say what the system is, you make no sense and we're talking about stipulating terms for a definition. This is no time to be vague or suffer poor English.

I think you are the one who is splitting hairs at the moment. Everybody knows that a superconductor forms within a material when its valence-electrons forms a separate phase which makes superconduction through it possible. To say that it is a phase is thus not vague or poor English.

Johan, I've said it now twice. I'm going to say it one last time with more context so you get it. I'm not going to say it a forth time.

Dave asked you for about 3 paragraphs to share with others, to send out accompanied by links to your book in progress. I'm sure there are many of us who would like to help out in this way.

If in those three paragraphs you tell everyone their definition for superconductivity is wrong, their physics is wrong, and you alone are right, NO ONE IN THIER RIGHT MIND IS EVEN GOING TO OPEN THE LINK TO YOUR WORK.

Use a STANDARD definition of SC. Do just what Dave asked for: explain what you have and the evidence to date, well enough to get people's interest. Anything else is not worth my time, and I'm sure not anyone else's either. We won't be forwarding your 3 paragraphs picking a fight with the world in our notes to our friends and associates--I assure you.

This is not the time to correct the physics of the world. This is three paragraphs to say what you have, and what the evidence is for what you have.

[johanfprins]

C

Could expand on this a bit. If the electric field is zero within the superconductor, how do you talk about increasing the "applied" electric field. Where is it applied to? I assume the increasing voltage would have to be taken up by the power supply internal resistance and the standard-cabling to the superconductor.

Thanks for this question: There is only one way in which an applied electric-field can be cancelled within a material, and that is by generating an opposite polarisation field. This happens in all conductors when you apply an electric-field without sending a current into the conductor. When, however, applying an electric field between two contacts a current flows precisely because the conductor attempts to cancel the applied electric-field; but owing to the current it can never achieve this.

Thus a material with "free" charge=carriers can never be a superconductor. In the low temperature metals the conducting electrons first have to go through a metal-insulator transition to form an array of localised anchored states. When applying an electric field these states polarise and cancel the electric field at each localised site. This increases their energy and they move up higher within the superconducting energy gap; which by the way forms fully at the critical temperature. In fcat if the latter does NOT happen (as modelled by BCS) one will NOT measure a sudden jump in the heat capacity of the electrons.

At higher temperatures these states can conduct a current by hopping conduction: i.e. by being kicked-on by temperature fluctuations. So there is still a resistivity: However, once their density becomes high enough at low temperatures, they can move by means of quantum fluctuations; as allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship.

Thus consider these localised "electron-orbitals": When injecting a charge at the injection contact it replaces one of them near the contact. This is possible since the orbital being replaced can borrow energy (delta)E and move to the adjacent site within an allowed time-interval (delt)t to replace the next orbital in the same manner. In this way charge is relayed through the superconducting phase. This is where the similarity with Newton's cradle comes in.

Now note that during each jump, the energy needed to do so is borrowed and returned. Thus there is no energy which requires dissipation and since the electric-field is cancelled by polarisation at each site, the current is not driven by acceleration. Thus no voltage difference can appear over the contacts. In fact even thermodynamics tells us that perpetual motion, which happens when the charge-carriers are flowing around a superconducting ring after trapping a magnetic flux, can only occur when you can obtain energy from a source, do work, change the work back in energy, and return it to the source. This is why superconduction relates to dark energy etc., as I have already mentioned above.

Thus to increase the current one must increase the applied electric-field: This increases the polarisation-energy of the localised states, which, in turn, decreases their density. Once their denisty becomes too low to allow jumping by means of quantum fluctuations superconduction stops: The maximum current is then reached.

It is late in South Africa and I am signing off to calm down before answering GIThruster above.

[BenTC]

but a phase is not a thing--it is a state of a thing, and so technically, without stating the thing or implying somewhere in the context, you cannot talk about a phase of a thing without the thing itself.

I only half-follow that, so perhaps my response won't quite align.

I would say the previous reference to "phase" strongly (and sufficiently) implied that the thing referred to was the superconducting material. Above the Tc it is in one phase, and below Tc another phase forms, wholly or partly within it. You might already know, but I'll just add that multiple phases can exist at the same time within a single material (take for instance 4%carbon@1000C in the phase diagram for Steel previously linked).

Its not a SC thing. Its a Material Science thing. My last unit of engineering study was Materials Science Applications. From that, such talking of phases makes sense. So maybe its domain specific language but not sloppy or incomplete.

btw, How do you consider the following quote from the wikipedia Steel article?

When steels with less than 0.8% carbon [...] are cooled from an austenitic phase the mixture attempts to revert to the ferrite phase, resulting in an excess of carbon.

Does Johan just need to give his phase a name?

[BenTC]

If in those three paragraphs you tell everyone their definition for superconductivity is wrong, their physics is wrong, and you alone are right, NO ONE IN THIER RIGHT MIND IS EVEN GOING TO OPEN THE LINK TO YOUR WORK.

I would strongly agree with GIThruster there. It the difference between TELLING people and LEADING people to your ideas. In general, people really don't like to be TOLD!

Want is required is a teaser showing your evidence. Something to pique peoples interest with offending their sensibilities. If people choose to read your book, it can then correct any fuzziness from the teaser.

[GIThruster]

Ben, a superconductor is not a phase. It is a material in a certain phase.

This is just broken English. I can't believe we're having this trouble.

How many people having this discussion have English as their first language, raise your hands!

Worse is, this is a completely unnecessary conflict. Dr. Prinz should NOT be making up his own definition for superconductivity and certainly he does not need to do this "first" in order to supply Dave with what he asked for.

I think you're being suckered, Ben; and I'm steadily gaining more reasons to view Dr. Prinz with suspicion. If he honestly cannot give Dave what he asked for in 3 paragraphs, without correcting people's definitions for what superconductivity entails, then I don't see a way in hell to get anyone who's time is worthy, to take a gander.

Johan! What did Dave ask for?! You don't need 3 paragraphs! You don't need to argue about definitions! You don't need to correct anyone's physics! It's because you've been doing these things for ten years that you have gotten nowhere!

"I have diamond superconducting substrates that operate at room temperature and above in both the lateral and thickness dimensions. I have made these substrates and tested them with ______. Better tests can be had by constructing them to much larger sizes. Their construction does not require very advanced equipment that cannot be had at many thousands of labs around the world. All that's needed to have higher fidelity tests of my substrates are relatively modest finances to support use of better equipment than I have."

No definitions needed.

I would certainly add that diamond has varying resistive properties depending upon a handful of things. CVD diamond often conducts better than natural diamond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_v ... of_diamond

You'll want to have tested values to show that your process certainly conducts better than other CVD diamond and that therefore, your process is producing a unique effect, despite that attempts to date have not entailed as high fidelity conductance tests as could be arranged given larger substrates.

[DeltaV]

Johan,

1) A brief detour from the current topic: Are you familiar with the work of Mendel Sachs? http://www.compukol.com/mendel/

2) Back to the current topic. Referring to the incomplete Newton's cradle analogy... is it possible to come up with a brief, visual, layman's explanation using only analogies with classical, macroscopic concepts (ball bearings, flexible membranes or whatever)? That is, start with kindergarten and work your way towards college, instead of vice versa. People can then jump off the pedagogical wagon when they feel they've reached their limit, yet still retain some concept of what your theory is about. I'd say at least 4-5 levels, the first one understandable by janitors, Congress critters*, news reporters, etc. Assume no knowledge of quantum physics, phases, etc. until higher levels are reached. This is a popularization-hence-funding strategy used quite often in the public realm for all sorts of research.

[Edit] Definition of "Congress critters" for non-US readers: politicians.

[Betruger]

How about you let Dr Prins finish outlining what his conjecture consists of before weighing and finding it wanting?

[GIThruster]

How about you let Dr Prins finish outlining what his conjecture consists of before weighing and finding it wanting?

If you want that, read his treatise. More pressing is, have a pair of claims that can be examined: a) he has an RTSC, and B) he has evidence of such.

it's because he's gotten weighed down in explanations that for ten years, no one has examined the claims in depth.

[DeltaV]

How about you let Dr Prins finish outlining what his conjecture consists of before weighing and finding it wanting?

How did you get that out of what I wrote? Go back and reread my post. It passes no judgement on Dr Prins' hypothesis, it only suggests a strategy for publicizing it.

[Betruger]

I didn't, that was to GIT, sorry.

If you want that, read his treatise. More pressing is, have a pair of claims that can be examined: a) he has an RTSC, and B) he has evidence of such.

it's because he's gotten weighed down in explanations that for ten years, no one has examined the claims in depth.

So he wasn't going to say anything that wasn't already in his treatise. Ok then. The way I saw it, he was being affable or something like it - entertaining WizWom & co's attempts to figure out the conjecture and maybe let some undisclosed implications show thru obviously enough.

A separate thing from the actual earth moving plans, on which I'd agree with whoever said so way earlier - no need to bother convincing of revolutionary physics or even informing of any physics at all, beyond what's needed to produce some curiously but reliably high performance parts. I don't see what (must've missed if it was pointed out) disqualifies this Trojan approach.

On one hand you have people like Woodward and March who're only missing concrete evidence to make a huge splash, and on the other you have people like Prins who (apparently, correct if I'm wrong) have concrete evidence but refuse to take an easy (if sideways) entrance to that same unavoidable big splash. Kinda crazy.