Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

scalziand wrote:Johan, I wonder what's your take on this paper, as from what I gather, it seems to disprove Cooper pairs in cuprate superconductors.
I have read the abstract quickly, and will read the paper later. This model is in certain aspects nearly identical to mine. The bound states are essential to explain superconduction: i.e that "electrons' are trapped within three-dimensional wells. But these states lie below the Fermi-level. Never above. If they are trapped electrons. Trapped holes obviously lie above the Fermi-level.

These authors realise that the binding energy of the trapped localised electrons determine the critical temperature, but they do not realise that it is not just the binding energy but also the spacing bwtween these localised states. If it were only the binding energy we would have had superconduction above room temperature decades ago.

I am glad that they also derived that the factor 2 in Josephson tunnelling is not caused by a double-charge. This of course totally excludes Cooper pairs. I have had quite a hard time on this very issue from main stream scientists. They of course realise that as soon as they agree with this, most, if not all the models on superconduction turn into dust.

According to my insight, these authors are on the right track.
Last edited by johanfprins on Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

parallel wrote:Johan,
Thank you for replying. As I wrote earlier, I find this one of the most interesting threads and wish you well in your experiments.
Looking forward to the results!
Thank you. You do not realise how much you are helping me to remain sane.

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Another complication for the "Cooper Pair" theory ... experimentally observed.

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressrele ... 110324.htm

""A clear answer as to whether such a gap is just an extension of superconductivity or a harbinger of another phase is a critical step in developing better superconductors," Shen said.

In work done at SLAC's Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Advanced Light Source and Stanford University, Shen's team looked at a sample of a cuprate superconductor from the inside out. They examined electronic behavior at the sample's surface, thermodynamic behavior in the sample's interior, and changes to the sample's dynamic properties over time using a trifecta of measurement techniques never before employed together. "

"The team's findings: electrons in the pseudogap phase are not pairing up. They reorganize into a distinct yet elusive order of their own. In fact, the new order is also present when the material is superconducting; it had been overlooked before, masked by the behavior of superconducting electron pairs. "

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

icarus wrote:"The team's findings: electrons in the pseudogap phase are not pairing up. They reorganize into a distinct yet elusive order of their own. In fact, the new order is also present when the material is superconducting; it had been overlooked before, masked by the behavior of superconducting electron pairs. "
How do they know that this phase has been "masked" by the behaviour of "Cooper Pairs"?

The pseudogap can be undwerstood as follows: It is the superconducting phase irself but the density of the localised charge-carriers is too low for superconduction to occur.

When these electrons are trapped, they leave holes behind which are then, under these conditions, able to transport a normal current.

By lowering the temperature the density of localised SINGLE-ELECTRON states increases until at a critical density they can transport charge by means of quantum fluctuations. Superconduction then occurs. It is of coure possible that the charge-carriers might be doubly-charged, but this is not a necessary requirement for superconduction to occur.

dweigert
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:09 am

Post by dweigert »

Please keep up the very good work you do! And yes, I'm one of the ones hoping your successes are recognised..

Dan

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

dweigert wrote:Please keep up the very good work you do! And yes, I'm one of the ones hoping your successes are recognised..

Dan
Thank you for your support. It has been very lonely the past 10 years. It helps to know that there are people rooting for me.

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Any news?

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Betruger wrote:Any news?
It is going hectic. I had to rewrite my patent since it is everytime judged in terms of the mainstream models like BCS which are all wrong since not one of them can explain the fact that a superconductor is a conducting insulator. When no current is flowing it reacts to an applied electric-field like a highly polarisable insulator, while when a current flows it cancels the electric-field within it. In other words without a current flowing, the metal-to-superconducting transition at the critical temperature Tc is a metal-to-insulatior transition.

The present patent claims low resistance transistors and connections on chips like computer processors which will generate minimum heat. We are also planning to look at other electronic-magnetic structures which will be more efficient when the resistivity is the lowest value that one can reach at present.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Now that is a limitless topic! (pun intended)

Seriously, this would change so much in design and application criteria it is mind boggling.

Giorgio
Posts: 2776
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Hi Johan,

Are you planning any new experiment?
Or anyone will attempt to replicate your experiment in the coming future?

Best wishes for the new patent draft!

Giorgio
Posts: 2776
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

ladajo wrote:Seriously, this would change so much in design and application criteria it is mind boggling.
No doubt about that. I am very curious to see if someone will test this in a lab under Johan supervision if possible.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Giorgio wrote:
ladajo wrote:Seriously, this would change so much in design and application criteria it is mind boggling.
No doubt about that. I am very curious to see if someone will test this in a lab under Johan supervision if possible.
I have been looking for such a person for nearly 7 years now. The "term" superconduction proved to be an albatros around my neck. I hope that by dropping this term I can get more interest: After all, if you can cut down heat generation in processor chips substantially and thus make them faster; then whether the substrate is really superconducting or just have the lowest resistivity of any material known to date, becomes superfluous.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

johanfprins wrote:. The "term" superconduction proved to be an albatros around my neck. I hope that by dropping this term I can get more interest: After all, if you can cut down heat generation in processor chips substantially and thus make them faster; then whether the substrate is really superconducting or just have the lowest resistivity of any material known to date, becomes superfluous.
No sh*t, Sherlock!?..

...for which we all got replies to comments like;
chrismb wrote:So what? WHO CARES if it is actually superconducting or not!?

If you are after a material that means a chip gives out no heat then it doesn't really matter if it gives out no heat at all, or a mW or two. In the sense of a utility, it makes no difference at all.

So, to achieve your claim of reducing the heat output from silicon, you need only claim a reduction of resistance in the material and you have your utility to claim for your patent.

If you might excuse my presumptiveness, I therefore presume that you feel a need to embed the claim of superconductivity in your patent.

But this isn't necessary. You need only claim a reduction in resistance and, if you really feel it necessary to do, you can claim that there is a theoretical prospect for superconductivity. Your claim cannot then be faulted by the examiners for an unjustified claim.
johanfprins wrote:Jumping to conclusions again! You see why I cannot trust "others" before they say what they are willing to do if I can prove to them I am correct. I do not mind sharing the spoils provided such a company is strong enough to protect the IP.

The rest of what you wrote is basically a repeat of what you already have written above. It is based on presuppositions and I find id patronizing and insulting.
johanfprins wrote:
Betruger wrote:Aside any impoliteness of Chrismb's, his suggestions boil down to roughly the same thing as a few of us suggested earlier. Patent your product/formula as a "low" resistivity product that's not "revolutionary"- making sure the essential recipe is secure by patent, and let any company that surely would pick up on such useful performance (effective superconductivity) prove your formula in wide practice. No one then will have any credibility in claiming your theory or products are baseless. That done, up-ending the whole "physics church"'s corruption will be child's play.
You "only" would have to defer the satisfaction of sticking it to those corrupt scientists & acolytes for a little while.
I fully understand what you are trying to say, but you do not have all the facts. AND PLEASE I am not an idiot who cannot reason out these for myself. There are other boundary conditions involved which I am not willing to discuss on an open forum, only with a financially strong company.

As far as my model of superconduction is concerned, I am already starting to win through my book. As one theoretical physicist wrote: I hope that the fleas of a thousand camels nest in the armpits of those who have opposed you.
So, have you now seen sense and are there any apologies due, or are we all still patronizing fools to you?

Betruger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

You just can't let petty stuff go..

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Betruger wrote:You just can't let petty stuff go..
(Me, or JP?)

You have to recognise that there are several weeks of comments JP made to me predicated entirely on me offering comments to progress his patents, and his subsequent rejection of them and condemnation of my supposed incomprehensions of his issues.

Post Reply