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:

Postby johanfprins » Sat May 14, 2011 5:00 pm

chrismb wrote:
johanfprins wrote:. 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.
I admit that I have probably misunderstood your intentions: And if this is the case, then YES, I owe you an apology. At that stage I just did not know how to modify my approach. Since then I have done extra experiments.

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.
At that time I did not have the extra data to follow this route. Fortunately, in the meantime, i have been able to do more experiments. I do agree that your advice did prove valuable in the end: But I could not see my way open to follow it at that time.
You "only" would have to defer the satisfaction of sticking it to those corrupt scientists & acolytes for a little while.
I do not have to do this and still will not do this.

So, have you now seen sense and are there any apologies due, or are we all still patronizing fools to you?
At that stage I did not have the data I have since generated and could thus not see the wisdom in your advice. I thus sincerely apologise: I am only human you know!

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Sat May 14, 2011 5:31 pm

chrismb wrote:
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.
You... You know better.. I shouldn't have said anything, but really all you have to do for the "abuse" to abate is to only respond to the meat of the topic - math and physics and all - rather than get wound up and wind up in return over interpersonal chemistry..

Regardless who is right or wrong, in the end the technical/scientific discussion goes nowhere over something as meaningless as that chemistry. What does it matter if someone rubs you the wrong way in such a discussion? That's an honest question with nothing between the lines - it doesn't matter. Completely immaterial to the physics in contention.

Was going to edit this post (after reading the above reply of Dr Prins'), but for the sake of honesty I won't. The point above and in previous posts is only in the interest of everyone getting more out of this discussion, not pretending to speak for anyone..

It's good to see this one back on track and on good terms :)
Last edited by Betruger on Sat May 14, 2011 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby chrismb » Sat May 14, 2011 5:34 pm

johanfprins wrote: At that stage I did not have the data I have since generated and could thus not see the wisdom in your advice. I thus sincerely apologise: I am only human you know!
Thanks. Accepted. Glad it came straight in the end. Good luck with your future ventures.

best regards,

Giorgio
Posts: 2668
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sat May 14, 2011 8:03 pm

We are all gentlemen here even if we have different opinions on many issues.
These last few posts are a good proof of this.

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

Postby ladajo » Sat May 14, 2011 10:03 pm

I specialize in rudeness, and am insulted to be considered polite.
You are going to get me upset, and I'll have Post Traumatic Italy flashbacks where I start talking loudly with my hands!

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat May 14, 2011 10:44 pm

johanfprins wrote: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.


I'm also pleased to learn of your new approach, Dr. Prins. I think you'll remember I also counseled you might set aside theory and simply file the patent based upon performance rather than the underlying explanation for that performance.

I'm curious though, if where you're headed makes room for larger structures. To be sure, any hyper-conducting substrate will be a boon for chip manufacture, but have you ruled out construction of larger applications such as wire? I personally have a continuing interest in wire-like applications, especially things like coils intended for enormous currents.

YBCO tapes continue to improve hugely each year, but the ability to provide something like their performance at room temperature would be a fabulous thing, especially for those of us holding out hope for things like the Poly.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Giorgio
Posts: 2668
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Sun May 15, 2011 12:38 am

ladajo wrote:I specialize in rudeness, and am insulted to be considered polite.
You are going to get me upset, and I'll have Post Traumatic Italy flashbacks where I start talking loudly with my hands!

That's scary indeed.......You really took the worst from your stay in italy :D

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

Postby johanfprins » Sun May 15, 2011 12:41 pm

GIThruster wrote: I'm also pleased to learn of your new approach, Dr. Prins. I think you'll remember I also counseled you might set aside theory and simply file the patent based upon performance rather than the underlying explanation for that performance.
The only problem at that stage was that in terms of the data I had accumulated up to then, I could not see how I could write a patent in this manner. Fortunately, I did proceed with some more garage-experiments and found a way which I hope wil now be successful. My patent attorneys are very upbeat about this. I am glad that you are also pleased.
I'm curious though, if where you're headed makes room for larger structures. To be sure, any hyper-conducting substrate will be a boon for chip manufacture, but have you ruled out construction of larger applications such as wire? I personally have a continuing interest in wire-like applications, especially things like coils intended for enormous currents.
No I have not ruled out such possibilities; and would very much like to pursue them when I have the finances to buy and build the equipment that might make this possible. Obviously scale ups of equipment are required through which a wire can be continuously fed and treated.
YBCO tapes continue to improve hugely each year, but the ability to provide something like their performance at room temperature would be a fabulous thing, especially for those of us holding out hope for things like the Poly.
I agree: And I would like to attempt it since my data indicate that such wires might be possible.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Postby BenTC » Tue May 17, 2011 8:43 am

johanfprins wrote:
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.


hi Johan, I've been quite busy off forum and have only occasionally checked back in - since its easy to chew up up a lot of time here. I'm glad you've found your way to be comfortable starting with lesser claims. I hope once you've had success with that, it will make your stonger claims more palatable to the majority.

Probably be a while before I check back in.
Good luck, Ben
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue May 17, 2011 10:59 am

BenTC wrote:hi Johan, I've been quite busy off forum and have only occasionally checked back in - since its easy to chew up up a lot of time here. I'm glad you've found your way to be comfortable starting with lesser claims. I hope once you've had success with that, it will make your stonger claims more palatable to the majority.

Probably be a while before I check back in.
Good luck, Ben
Thanks Ben: I appreciate your interest and support.
Johan

mdeminico
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

Postby mdeminico » Fri May 20, 2011 4:53 am

chrismb wrote:
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.


Chris, I think it has something to do with the fact that you came across as a, um... well, as a jerk originally... I presume that's changed

And on another note, Johan, let me know if there's any updates to our discussion, you should have an eMail a few weeks, maybe a month ago that I sent in your inbox.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Sat May 21, 2011 2:48 pm

Very glad to hear you've been able to do more experiments and get more data, Johan. Best of luck with your patents (your approach seems very sensible) and future work.

Have you spoken with any investors? Did you ever hear back from any of the other labs? Is a paper in the offing?
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

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

Postby johanfprins » Sun May 22, 2011 10:52 am

TallDave wrote:Very glad to hear you've been able to do more experiments and get more data, Johan. Best of luck with your patents (your approach seems very sensible) and future work.
Thank you.
Have you spoken with any investors? Did you ever hear back from any of the other labs?
We are getting into gear. One of my investors is busy preparing possible business plans and I have been preparing a Power Point presentaion which we hope will clearly demonstrate to an investor what the future possibilities are. It starts off with Edison's light bulb, the triode, then the transistor etc. Pointing out all along that progress happenned when heat waste decreased; and that we are now again at a cross roads when manufacturing processor chips for the same reason.
Is a paper in the offing?
I have given up two years ago to try and publish any papers since it has become clear that since 2003 I have been blacklisted by the inquisition which controls the physics church.

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

Postby ladajo » Sun May 22, 2011 1:02 pm

But the book worked right? How has that been playing out?

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

Postby johanfprins » Sun May 22, 2011 1:57 pm

ladajo wrote:But the book worked right? How has that been playing out?
Yes it has been going better than I expected: It provided te money that I needed to do more experiments. I also had very good feedback; which praised and also pointed out possible mistakes. Most "mistakes" were due to misunderstandings; but one proved to be serious: I based my model of the ac-Josephson effect on the untrue claim in the literature that one can at will place any voltage across the insulating junction of a superconducting SIS-structure. This is wrong and also made my model just as wrong as the mainstream model. I am at present updating that part of my book and will insert it when we print the next batch. Nonetheless, except for this, the book is withstanding criticism very well and the sales have been very good indeed: especially if you consisder the fact that the book is only publicised on my website. We hope to also correct the latter situation soon.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests