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 »

MSimon wrote:I wonder if exploring the substrate with an STM might not be better than contact electrodes.

You can build a rather good STM for under $100 in parts.

Here is a good place to start:
Sorry MSimon. I missed your post. Yes STM measurements do show up features. In fact there has been STM scans published by people who did not realise how close they were to generating a superconducting substrate. Just remember, I do not have the additional money to do additional experiments: Not even $100. Neither do I have the time to do more experiments on my own anymore. Nonetheless an STM study would be very interesting.

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

Post by icarus »

Let's put this in perspective, you have a revolutionary theory for superconductivity (backed by your own incontrovertible experimental evidence) but no time and no money to do any further research on your own behalf.

Do you want someone else to repeat your experiments and verify what you've found (?) (that is not clear in what you've presented so far.) Yet you also are claiming IP over some aspects of the techniques involved. Does this not exclude the possibility of others repeating your experiments?

Perhaps answer the question first if you are doing science or want to get in business?

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

Post by BenTC »

johanfprins wrote:I do not have the additional money to do additional experiments: Not even $100. Neither do I have the time to do more experiments on my own anymore. Nonetheless an STM study would be very interesting.
Recently an amateur researcher into the Polywell raised a reasonable sum of money on KickStarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/199 ... on-reactor

If you can define some specific experiments with near term goals, that might be a path to achieve them. You only need a few interested punters for a few hundred dollars. If you don't have the time, the money might be used to fund particular testing by a graduate student, or someone volunteered by the community here. Be clear on what you would give back to the community - data, graphs, pieces of substrate, signed copies of your old and new book (in the case you become a celebrity millionaire) - but mostly open source data to lead on to the next KickStarter round.

A patent on a method of predicting high-temp SC is an interesting strategy. Less disprovable and perhaps less likely for rejection out-of-hand by the patent office as having invlaid physics. In that regard, is there any possiblity of support you theories by either:
1. predicting and openly publishing a specific material with Tc slightly better than existing superconductors.
2. predict some unknown properties of existing superconductors that others could easily measure
Though of course there is some risk involving Murphy's Law and third-parties undermining your credability.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Johan, I think what's necessary is for you to design some tests of superconductivity, perhaps with an STM, perhaps others, but I can't imagine using contact electrodes on a substrate 6mm long is going to be useful. Certainly, the diamond shouldn't be conducting and if it does and does so easily, there's some evidence, but it's only meager evidence.

As far as your explanations based upon theory go, these are not evidence. These are explanations and any savvy investor will be interested to hear them, but they do not count as evidence.

You have for 10 years been doing this backward, so I'm telling you what is necessary to avoid the kinds of troubles you've had. Theory is second. Physical evidence is first.

I'm interested in theory, and in the past when I've gotten involved in identifying emergent technologies, I always use two tests: first is whether there is adequate theory to support the claims. In most cases, this stage requires peer review because I can't consider myself an authority on every subject. So peer review is necessary.

The second test is objective physical evidence. If someone has a design for a power generator or thruster, then it has to generate power or thrust. There's no way to get around this step.

In your case, you do not have peer review. This makes your position quite weak. I have no doubt your story about how superconductance work is a good story, but right now it's you against the world--and this is how things should be. What this means is, you need to provide the very strongest kind of physical evidence.

Telling yourself wealthy Americans ought to be able to risk $20k is not going to get you the funds to do the work we're talking about. I would never ask anyone for $20k based upon the evidence presented here.

Now, if there's a way to use an STM to get very formidable evidence from a 4X6mm wafer, lets talk about this. . .but lets not talk any more about how $20k is not much money compared to what one might win. $20k is always a lot of money.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Gandalf
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:19 am

Meissner effect might be useful

Post by Gandalf »

Johan, here is a link to an article where a simple technique was used to identify very small high-Tc particles:

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v37/i1/p559_1

I understand that the Meissner effect is not the gold standard everyone thinks it is, but it may be fairly easy and cheap to demonstrate using your films. It should be easy enough to separate some of the film from the substrate, but the lack of observable Tc might be an interesting challenge.

I understand you don't have the resources for $100, or $1000 garage experiments, but I do (along with many others here), and am willing to help in aligning and sending resources your way.

If this is at all interesting to you, I'll have this (and similar) article(s) sent your way, just let me know.
I know it is argued that the Meissner effect should next be used: But this also does not really prove superconduction. One can even levitate a live frog, but this does not mean it is a superconductor. I have been hampered to use Meissner levitation since the substrate mass is far larger than the thckness of the superconducting layer. To overcome this problem I need more sophisticated techniques than what I can muster in my garage. Nonetheless in terms of accepted physics I can argue more logically that the electric-field within this phase is exactly zero than one can argue for ANY other superconductor EVER found.

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

Post by johanfprins »

icarus wrote:Let's put this in perspective, you have a revolutionary theory for superconductivity (backed by your own incontrovertible experimental evidence) but no time and no money to do any further research on your own behalf.

Do you want someone else to repeat your experiments and verify what you've found (?) (that is not clear in what you've presented so far.) Yet you also are claiming IP over some aspects of the techniques involved. Does this not exclude the possibility of others repeating your experiments?

Perhaps answer the question first if you are doing science or want to get in business?
What I am looking for is a well-established company who has the expertise to design and develop processor chips. To sign a non-disclosure agreement with them and start to use what I already have and can show them. We should be able to have such processors on the market within a couple of years. As I have pointed out I cannot do this in my garage. Furthermore, such a company should have electrical engineers (not stupid theoretical physicists) who will be able to at least understand when Ohm's law is valid and when not.

I do not need an Angel to fund me to do further resaerch since the proof that I have is better than for any other superconductor ever discovered before.

To make sure that we understand each other on this forum, I would like one of you to define what a superconductor is: AND PLEASE do not define it as a material with zero electrical resistance since zero resistance has also NEVER been defined before. If you want to do so you must first define what you mean by zero resistance.

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

Post by johanfprins »

To BenTC, GIThruster and Gandalf,

Ok let us decide what else I should prove: But as I have pointed out in my post above, we first have to define what a superconductor is, and then decide if all the techniques which have been used to date did prove supercondution.

Now let me give you the ONLY valid definition of a superconductor: It is a material through which an electric current flows while there is NO electric field within the material. To prove superconduction THIS is what you have to prove: And as I have pointed out this has NEVER been proved for ANY material which has been classified as a superconductor. So are they REALLY superconductors?

What I thus think you should do is to ask ALL the scientists who claimed superconduction before I came along to prove without doubt that there is no electric field within those materiials while a current is flowing. Obviously it cannot be done experimentally since one cannot design a voltmeter which can measure zero voltage. One has to prove it by impeccable logic using incontrovertible physics.

Nobody can do this for any so-called of the SC discovered since 1911, except for my phase. So who do you believe has really proved that superconduction is possible? Why should I repeat experiments which do not and never have proved REAL superconduction before my phase came along?

Gandalf
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:19 am

Post by Gandalf »

What I am looking for is a well-established company who has the expertise to design and develop processor chips. To sign a non-disclosure agreement with them and start to use what I already have and can show them. We should be able to have such processors on the market within a couple of years. As I have pointed out I cannot do this in my garage. Furthermore, such a company should have electrical engineers (not stupid theoretical physicists) who will be able to at least understand when Ohm's law is valid and when not.
Ok! Very clear, now lets proceed...
To make sure that we understand each other on this forum, I would like one of you to define what a superconductor is: AND PLEASE do not define it as a material with zero electrical resistance since zero resistance has also NEVER been defined before. If you want to do so you must first define what you mean by zero resistance.
As long as you are asking this of the forum, and not of your potential corporate sponsor provided engineers. After all, they are only engineers and not theoretical physicists, and are therefore not trained to think terribly far outside the box. Offer to demonstrate a novel chip that generates far less heat per operation than conventional chips and you've got an engineer's attention. Ask them to go beyond the standard model of physics into new realms (as you've done above) and you've asked too much. Eyes will glass over and the bean-counters behind the engineers will walk away. You should be able to lead such engineers into your new territory, but you are going to have to target your audience in very carefully measured stages. In short, you have to lead them into a new reality, one chapter at a time, without giving away the ending.

Cooler, faster processors would be... cool. Enabling humans to actually generate energy to power whatever they wanted, cleanly and forever... that would be totally awesome. Unfortunately the market for such processors already exists, and polywell is still just a pipe dream. So it seems your approach is spot on. For now.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Johan, I would think you should be able to provide at least 3 different kinds of tests. First is your conductance test. Did you do this with a micro-ohm meter or with a DVM? What were your findings? I've already been in dialog with a PhD EE over how to improve this test and will discuss with you about this in another venue.

Second is the Meisner test. If you have a superconductor, you ought to be able to generate both force and displacement with a b field, even if that force is not enough for levitation. So for example, we could put one of your samples on a non-magnetic tray suspended from a Mettler H20, and then by waving a small NIB magnet over it we ought to see force generated against the balance. IIRC, the H20 reads down to 0.005mg. One expects that's enough resolution to see some action. Test with and without the sample to show no b-coupling. What is your substrate laid down on and what sort of thickness and mass are we talking?

Third is to show no heat generation. How much current can your substrate take? Can we by comparison with a copper blank show that you have something conducting much better than copper?

I should also make mention, that no one in their right mind is going to sign an NDA just to test your substrates. If they need to know how you made them, for example if they're helping with a patent application; then they shoulld sign an NDA. Requiring people to sign an NDA simply to test your claims is a self-destructive and useless requirement. Everyone involved in invention is cautious to sign an NDA for any reason. It only suits your purpooses to have them signed for real reasons.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Gandalf
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:19 am

Post by Gandalf »

Why should I repeat experiments which do not and never have proved REAL superconduction before my phase came along?
To get money.

Paradigms are a tough thing to crack.

If you offer to work with a corporation to make chips, what are you promising them? A newer, better understanding of the universe, or a new path to (increased) profit?

A corporation isn't going to care how right or wrong someone's understanding of physics is, unless they can use it make money. If you want to demonstrate (as you've directly stated) that previous models are wrong, then you need to do your dance in academia. On the other hand, if you want to demonstrate that you know how to do something better, cheaper, faster, and cooler, then do the corporate dance. These are vastly different audiences.

You really shouldn't approach a corporate sponsor and say what you've said here, basically that you are right and everyone else is wrong. They'll smile, nod politely, and just go away. Instead, show them the money... "here is what I can demonstrate, here is how it will make you more competitive and more profitable...".

Now, back on subject. If a supercurrent generated an electric field, wouldn't it be possible for nearby conductors to suck the energy out of your supercurrent, thus creating some form of measurable loss? So, your definition seems quite sound. I'm not a physicist, just a lowly engineer, but I have spent a fair bit of time (many years ago) characterizing bulk and even a few tin-film superconductors, and I've never observed this loss. The Meisnner effect is really weird, and really nifty. It's like an iPad. You can physically interact with pixels without using a mouse. In the grand scheme of things it's grossly overstated, but people throw money at it.

I have no problem with any of your assertions. I do have a problem with the fact that you have observed something very interesting, and that it's not currently contributing towards a more interesting world.

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

Post by GIThruster »

I have to agree with everything Gandalf is writing. There are two separate approaches here. The first is the one Johan has taken, which is to say his theory EXPLAINS. . .the power of explanation is quite real and a necessary part of good science. However, if you want to get the ear of academia and circumvent the pitfalls you will necessarily find in correcting current scientific theory, then you need to go to market.

The second approach is not to say you have theory or an EXPLANATION. It is to say you have EVIDENCE. You have to provide as much physical evidence as possible. Also, you can't stipulate others sign NDA and send you money nor the kinds of companies you want to work with. If Intel was interested they would have let you know long ago. Certainly, they're well aware of your work.

IMHO, if you want to bring this to market, you need contacts and tests. You need to work with a small group connected to investors who will support the discovery and validation phase so that you have the necessary EVIDENCE to sell an exclusive license to someone like Intel. That is going to take a couple years all by itself, just to validate the work, patent the method and sell the license. Making chips cannot possibly happen in less than half a dozen years, so I can't imagine why you keep saying 2 years.

Johan, you're convinced you have a room temperature superconductor. Your task is to convince others and you're not going to do that with theory, obviously or you would have by now. What you need is evidence.

Do you have a lab report that explains how you have tested what you have and how you did your error analysis?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: Meissner effect might be useful

Post by pfrit »

Gandalf wrote:Johan, here is a link to an article where a simple technique was used to identify very small high-Tc particles:

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v37/i1/p559_1
I can't read the article, but was this the one where they progrssively chilled the charged powder and put a magnetic field at the bottom, stirred and watched the particles float?
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

johanfprins wrote: What I am looking for is a well-established company who has the expertise to design and develop processor chips.
If you have Josephson junction TRANSISTORS - let alone chips - that work at room temperature, you have a fortune in RF applications waiting for you. Start small.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

What I am looking for is a well-established company who has the expertise to design and develop processor chips.
Well established companies have investors and boards of directors. And laws. And fiduciary duties.

No one is going to design processor chips without good proofs.

What you want are people willing to fund your idea on a small scale. If you want protection: patent first and then tell people exactly how to replicate your experiments.

Otherwise your main hope is that some one else discovers your idea and then discovers the patents. Or the patents languish for 20 or 25 years and then some one after the fact looks at what you have done (see Lilenthal and the FET).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I'm beginning to see a cultural pattern here. And that may a harder gap to bridge than the science.

An entrepreneurship gap if you will.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply