Defining zero electrical resistance
All circuits involve a real (resistive) and an imaginary (reactive) component. Resistance is the power loss mechanism where heat is generated. An ideal capacitor is purely reactive. A voltage drop across it causes a charging current to flow through/into it until the electric field is balanced and no current flows. This occurs with no loss, and no heat generated. If the voltage is sinsuoidal, then the electric field and charging current are 90 degrees out of phase.
An ideal inductor is purely reactive. A voltage drop across it causes current flow through it. Assuming an infinite source, the current increases unbounded until the electric field is removed, for instance by shorting the inductor terminals with an ideal zero-resistance conductor. Whatever current was flowing at that instance will continue to flow, infinitely, with no power loss, and no heat generated. This actually satisfies the condition of current flowing with no electric field! If the voltage is sinsuoidal, then the electric field and charging current are 90 degrees out of phase, in the other direction to the capacitor.
Put an ideal charged capacitor in parallel with an ideal inductor and they will resonate infinitely, with no loss, and no heat generated. Real components do have a resistive component which that gradually drains energy from the resonant circuit. That energy is converted to heat.
So... resistance can be defined as something that converts electrical energy to heat.
Heat is the ultimate limiting factor of many electrical designs - eg chip manufacture and power cable sizing. The ultimate utility of superconductors is that they don't produce heat. Zero internal resistance or zero internal electric field are perhaps the mechanisms to achieve this, but as an electrical engineer, I'm happy to work with a black box that does a certain thing without knowing how the insides work. Show me a current flowing that doesn't produce heat, and thats enough for me.
btw, do superconductors introduce any phase shift between voltage and current?
Room-temperature superconductivity?
Defining zero electrical resistance
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Re: Meissner effect might be useful
Yes, that's the one. Small world, isn't itI 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?
-
johanfprins
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
- Location: Johannesbutg
- Contact:
I have to send this by cellphone and had to compose it first separately:
Gandalf wrote:
“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.”
I have found over the last 10 years that the engineers are far more capable of understanding physics than the bozos who since 1930 led theoretical physics into Alice’s Wonderland. If only they had listened to Einstein, we would not be busy to spend billions of dollars looking for non-existent “particles” like the Higg’s boson: and even “finding” them like Rubbia did with the vector bosons. All engineers I have talked to the past 10 years immediately understood what I said because it is elementary physics. I did not ask anybody EVER “to go beyond the realms of standard physics; since I am not creating new physics but using what one finds in elementary text books correctly: The latter has NOT been done by the physicists for years. The engineers are just too scared to challenge the theoretical physicists and the violations of basic elementary mathematics. My new book which will be out in September does exactly what you advise: It leads all people with common sense back to the reality from which the theoretical physicists detoured since the great confusion entered physics in 1927 during the Solvay conference.
What you and the other people here on this forum deduced, incorrectly, is that I have a theory which deviates from standard elementary physics without any experimental proof. Not so! I have incontrovertible experimental proof that I have and can generate a phase consisting of electrons in vacuum within which an electric-field cannot exist without violating all elementary physics like electrodynamics and thermodynamics. And that charge can be transferred through this phase even though there cannot be an electric-field within it. And that this happens at room and higher temperatures (>500 Celsius). This is the best proof for superconduction EVER!!
GIThruster wrote:
“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.”
I do not have a micro-ohm meter. Owing to the nature of the SC-phase, the contacts require very small work-functions. To obtain low resistance contacts requires suitable materials I do not have access to. Neither am I able to prepare 4-point contacts on my small substrates. The latter should, however, be possible in a suitable micro-electronics laboratory which will have the correct equipment.
”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?”
There are two ways to generate this SC phase:
One is to extract electrons from the diamond so that it forms a phase between this surface and the anode. The current can afterwards flow from the diamond to the anode or the other way around while it can be proved by the same elementary and impeccable physics used to model electronic interfaces that there CANNOT be an electric-field within this phase. This is the best proof EVER for superconduction. It might even mean that ALL the other superconductors which have been discovered to date are not real superconductors in the sense that my phase is. This might even imply that my phase might not have a Meissner effect: However, I have evidence that very fine magnetic dust does float around this phase; but need better equipment to confirm that this is happening without any doubt.
The other method which we developed over the past few years is to generate such a phase so that conduction can take place laterally instead of perpendicularly to the substrate. This phase is a bit more difficult to analyse; but what we have measured to date is that it is self-consistent with the perpendicular phase. So there is no doubt whatsoever that we can generate superconducting phases at room temperature. To apply these phases requires further technology to reduce contact resistance, etc. The route to follow next, is clear but requires micro-electronics laboratory equipment, which I do not have and could so far not convince anybody to help me with. Furthermore, although I know that it is possible to make a superconducting transistor, I do not have the knowledge to design such devices
”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? “
Yes, Provided that you have the same contact resistance to the copper blank than to the superconducting substrate. There is even a better way: In some cases it is possible for the SC phase to form a holistic entity (A real Bose-Einstein condensate) and then a signal can transfer through it extremely fast since it is an entangled entity (Think Einstein and EPR paradox: My what a genius he was): One can verify this with time-of-flight experiments
“ 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.”
I do not need any further testing since my evidence for superconduction is more compelling than for any other material discovered before.
Gandalf wrote:
“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?”
I am offering them a material within which one can manufacture electronic chips which generate no heat: It should lead to much faster processor chips which do not require cooling fans from keeping them to meltdown. It will mean a saving in energy costs so large that we might even be able to shut down power stations instead of building new one at a frenzied pace. In short, I am promising a new industrial revolution on a plate. Just think what China can do to the world if they control this technology!
“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.”
I do not need to chose one or the other, SINCE I can do BOTH.
“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.”
I have the same problem since we have already lost 10 years arguing instead of innovating. Michio Kaku predicted that a new Induatrial Revolution will ensue as soon as superconduction at room temperature has been found. This already happened 10 years ago. But Kaku will probably also not listen since the logical extension from this discovery is that “particles”, “sparticles”, “strings” and what have you are all plain hogwash.
GIThruster wrote:
“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. “
What I have and with the techniques available it is possible within two years. I have looked for the type of cooperation you advise but could not get it from anybody since they ask the superconductor physics sect to advise them. The latter sect is NOT WILLING to thionk outside the paradigm of the BCS-delusion.
”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. “
I have had evidence for 10 years already: But if a person looks at the evidence and says yes it is Novel BUT it cannot be SC since this violates BCS, then you have as little chance to argue real physics as Galileo had to argue his case against Ptolemy’s model.
”Do you have a lab report that explains how you have tested what you have and how you did your error analysis?”
Yes, the first discovery (perpendicular conduction) has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology and nobody to date could fault the physics; even though theoretical physicists like Marshall Stoneham in England castigated the Editor for publishing papers which “he knows must be wrong”. Stoneham was invited to write an article why “he knows” the papers are wrong. 7 years later I am still waiting with bated breath.
The studies that has since been done on parallel conduction are in a patent which we were forced to file for PTC evaluation the beginning of this year.
WizWom wrote:
“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.”
I agree: But even to start small you require money which I do not have and cannot get anybody to invest. By the way, as a matter of interest, the derivation by Josephson of superconducting tunnelling is dead wrong. It is based on the approach to chose physically impossible phase functions to fit the experimental data without realising that such a phase function is totally prescribed by the actual boundary conditions. Boundary conditions are then ignored: When you do this in physics you do voodoo: Examples of this voodoo is of course Josephson’s derivation, The derivation by Aharanov and Bohm, The London penetration depth, Cooper pair formation, quantum electrodynamics etc. All these aspects are treated in my forthcoming book.
MSimon wrote:
“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.”
That is what I am doing: But patents cost money I do not have. I already had to borrow another $100000 for the PTC application. When I have to go further next year I will need an additional amount of at least $500000. If I cannot find it I will have to sell the patent for a ridiculous amount to anybody who are interested to take it over, protect it and run with it. It might have to be China.
“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.”
What cultural pattern? My being African you mean?
BenTC wrote:
“Heat is the ultimate limiting factor of many electrical designs - eg chip manufacture and power cable sizing. The ultimate utility of superconductors is that they don't produce heat. Zero internal resistance or zero internal electric field are perhaps the mechanisms to achieve this, but as an electrical engineer, I'm happy to work with a black box that does a certain thing without knowing how the insides work. Show me a current flowing that doesn't produce heat, and thats enough for me.”
You are missing many points here. The point on which you are correct is that no heat must be generated, or rather while flowing through a superconductor work must not be done to which requires the accompanying energy to dissipate at any time or any place within our universe afterwards. For example, it is possible for a current to flow from one contact to another and not dissipating any energy, but once it enters the rest of the circuit, the energy which had to be generated for a charge-carrier to move from one contact to the other all THEN dissipate. Even though within such a material no heat is dissipated, such a material is NOT a perfect superconductor like the phases I can generate. To be a perfect superconductor, the kinetic energy required for a charge-carrier to move from one contact to another cannot be generated by an applied electric field AND it MUST NOT afterwards dissipate anywhere to increase the entropy of our universe
Gandalf wrote:
“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.”
I have found over the last 10 years that the engineers are far more capable of understanding physics than the bozos who since 1930 led theoretical physics into Alice’s Wonderland. If only they had listened to Einstein, we would not be busy to spend billions of dollars looking for non-existent “particles” like the Higg’s boson: and even “finding” them like Rubbia did with the vector bosons. All engineers I have talked to the past 10 years immediately understood what I said because it is elementary physics. I did not ask anybody EVER “to go beyond the realms of standard physics; since I am not creating new physics but using what one finds in elementary text books correctly: The latter has NOT been done by the physicists for years. The engineers are just too scared to challenge the theoretical physicists and the violations of basic elementary mathematics. My new book which will be out in September does exactly what you advise: It leads all people with common sense back to the reality from which the theoretical physicists detoured since the great confusion entered physics in 1927 during the Solvay conference.
What you and the other people here on this forum deduced, incorrectly, is that I have a theory which deviates from standard elementary physics without any experimental proof. Not so! I have incontrovertible experimental proof that I have and can generate a phase consisting of electrons in vacuum within which an electric-field cannot exist without violating all elementary physics like electrodynamics and thermodynamics. And that charge can be transferred through this phase even though there cannot be an electric-field within it. And that this happens at room and higher temperatures (>500 Celsius). This is the best proof for superconduction EVER!!
GIThruster wrote:
“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.”
I do not have a micro-ohm meter. Owing to the nature of the SC-phase, the contacts require very small work-functions. To obtain low resistance contacts requires suitable materials I do not have access to. Neither am I able to prepare 4-point contacts on my small substrates. The latter should, however, be possible in a suitable micro-electronics laboratory which will have the correct equipment.
”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?”
There are two ways to generate this SC phase:
One is to extract electrons from the diamond so that it forms a phase between this surface and the anode. The current can afterwards flow from the diamond to the anode or the other way around while it can be proved by the same elementary and impeccable physics used to model electronic interfaces that there CANNOT be an electric-field within this phase. This is the best proof EVER for superconduction. It might even mean that ALL the other superconductors which have been discovered to date are not real superconductors in the sense that my phase is. This might even imply that my phase might not have a Meissner effect: However, I have evidence that very fine magnetic dust does float around this phase; but need better equipment to confirm that this is happening without any doubt.
The other method which we developed over the past few years is to generate such a phase so that conduction can take place laterally instead of perpendicularly to the substrate. This phase is a bit more difficult to analyse; but what we have measured to date is that it is self-consistent with the perpendicular phase. So there is no doubt whatsoever that we can generate superconducting phases at room temperature. To apply these phases requires further technology to reduce contact resistance, etc. The route to follow next, is clear but requires micro-electronics laboratory equipment, which I do not have and could so far not convince anybody to help me with. Furthermore, although I know that it is possible to make a superconducting transistor, I do not have the knowledge to design such devices
”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? “
Yes, Provided that you have the same contact resistance to the copper blank than to the superconducting substrate. There is even a better way: In some cases it is possible for the SC phase to form a holistic entity (A real Bose-Einstein condensate) and then a signal can transfer through it extremely fast since it is an entangled entity (Think Einstein and EPR paradox: My what a genius he was): One can verify this with time-of-flight experiments
“ 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.”
I do not need any further testing since my evidence for superconduction is more compelling than for any other material discovered before.
Gandalf wrote:
“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?”
I am offering them a material within which one can manufacture electronic chips which generate no heat: It should lead to much faster processor chips which do not require cooling fans from keeping them to meltdown. It will mean a saving in energy costs so large that we might even be able to shut down power stations instead of building new one at a frenzied pace. In short, I am promising a new industrial revolution on a plate. Just think what China can do to the world if they control this technology!
“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.”
I do not need to chose one or the other, SINCE I can do BOTH.
“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.”
I have the same problem since we have already lost 10 years arguing instead of innovating. Michio Kaku predicted that a new Induatrial Revolution will ensue as soon as superconduction at room temperature has been found. This already happened 10 years ago. But Kaku will probably also not listen since the logical extension from this discovery is that “particles”, “sparticles”, “strings” and what have you are all plain hogwash.
GIThruster wrote:
“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. “
What I have and with the techniques available it is possible within two years. I have looked for the type of cooperation you advise but could not get it from anybody since they ask the superconductor physics sect to advise them. The latter sect is NOT WILLING to thionk outside the paradigm of the BCS-delusion.
”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. “
I have had evidence for 10 years already: But if a person looks at the evidence and says yes it is Novel BUT it cannot be SC since this violates BCS, then you have as little chance to argue real physics as Galileo had to argue his case against Ptolemy’s model.
”Do you have a lab report that explains how you have tested what you have and how you did your error analysis?”
Yes, the first discovery (perpendicular conduction) has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology and nobody to date could fault the physics; even though theoretical physicists like Marshall Stoneham in England castigated the Editor for publishing papers which “he knows must be wrong”. Stoneham was invited to write an article why “he knows” the papers are wrong. 7 years later I am still waiting with bated breath.
The studies that has since been done on parallel conduction are in a patent which we were forced to file for PTC evaluation the beginning of this year.
WizWom wrote:
“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.”
I agree: But even to start small you require money which I do not have and cannot get anybody to invest. By the way, as a matter of interest, the derivation by Josephson of superconducting tunnelling is dead wrong. It is based on the approach to chose physically impossible phase functions to fit the experimental data without realising that such a phase function is totally prescribed by the actual boundary conditions. Boundary conditions are then ignored: When you do this in physics you do voodoo: Examples of this voodoo is of course Josephson’s derivation, The derivation by Aharanov and Bohm, The London penetration depth, Cooper pair formation, quantum electrodynamics etc. All these aspects are treated in my forthcoming book.
MSimon wrote:
“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.”
That is what I am doing: But patents cost money I do not have. I already had to borrow another $100000 for the PTC application. When I have to go further next year I will need an additional amount of at least $500000. If I cannot find it I will have to sell the patent for a ridiculous amount to anybody who are interested to take it over, protect it and run with it. It might have to be China.
“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.”
What cultural pattern? My being African you mean?
BenTC wrote:
“Heat is the ultimate limiting factor of many electrical designs - eg chip manufacture and power cable sizing. The ultimate utility of superconductors is that they don't produce heat. Zero internal resistance or zero internal electric field are perhaps the mechanisms to achieve this, but as an electrical engineer, I'm happy to work with a black box that does a certain thing without knowing how the insides work. Show me a current flowing that doesn't produce heat, and thats enough for me.”
You are missing many points here. The point on which you are correct is that no heat must be generated, or rather while flowing through a superconductor work must not be done to which requires the accompanying energy to dissipate at any time or any place within our universe afterwards. For example, it is possible for a current to flow from one contact to another and not dissipating any energy, but once it enters the rest of the circuit, the energy which had to be generated for a charge-carrier to move from one contact to the other all THEN dissipate. Even though within such a material no heat is dissipated, such a material is NOT a perfect superconductor like the phases I can generate. To be a perfect superconductor, the kinetic energy required for a charge-carrier to move from one contact to another cannot be generated by an applied electric field AND it MUST NOT afterwards dissipate anywhere to increase the entropy of our universe
How about microloans Johan? Like http://www.kiva.org/, only for science and non-third world countries?
Maybe something like this:
http://www.lendingclub.com/home.action
Just trying to be helpful on the capital front, even though I have no money myself
Maybe something like this:
http://www.lendingclub.com/home.action
Just trying to be helpful on the capital front, even though I have no money myself
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Yes well, I found you a solution to your development needs. I suggest you return my mail.
In order to press forward first is to find an MBA with a highly technical background, such as a graduate degree in physics, who can represent your work to a suitable venture capitalist, structure a start-up and facilitate all the work. The difficulty with the finance world is that even with the perfect product, you have to finance it, document it, sell it, and support it. Furthermore, you'd be best served with a two tier company approach, one for the technology and licensing, a second for applications and non-exclusive licenses. This is all complex and time consuming. Do you want to try your hand at business or get people who are trained for this? You're going to need protections at many levels for the patents which means lawyers. You're going to need a LOT of things but first is the kind of business leadership you can trust and who can press this all forward, including gathering finances.
I found that for you. I suggest you return my mail.
In order to press forward first is to find an MBA with a highly technical background, such as a graduate degree in physics, who can represent your work to a suitable venture capitalist, structure a start-up and facilitate all the work. The difficulty with the finance world is that even with the perfect product, you have to finance it, document it, sell it, and support it. Furthermore, you'd be best served with a two tier company approach, one for the technology and licensing, a second for applications and non-exclusive licenses. This is all complex and time consuming. Do you want to try your hand at business or get people who are trained for this? You're going to need protections at many levels for the patents which means lawyers. You're going to need a LOT of things but first is the kind of business leadership you can trust and who can press this all forward, including gathering finances.
I found that for you. I suggest you return my mail.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
johanfprins
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
- Location: Johannesbutg
- Contact:
bennmannand GIThruster,
Thanks for your advice. I have at the moment a commitee of friends with the qualifications you suggest who are trying to find investors. Thus I should not work at cross purposes. GIThruster, I have found the e-mail and will answer it immediately. Thanks again for your interest and help.
Regards,
Johan
Thanks for your advice. I have at the moment a commitee of friends with the qualifications you suggest who are trying to find investors. Thus I should not work at cross purposes. GIThruster, I have found the e-mail and will answer it immediately. Thanks again for your interest and help.
Regards,
Johan
What an interesting thread.
Hope we get some practical application from your work, johanfprins. Best of luck.
Hope we get some practical application from your work, johanfprins. Best of luck.
Last edited by TallDave on Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Semi-related: there's a great Wired article on how very, very frightened they are right now.rcain wrote:no one seems to have mentioned De Beers yet, yet to me they seem like an elephant in the room...
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
I would avoid buying expensive natural diamonds. They may share the fate of aluminum, once considered a precious metal.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Page 5:TallDave wrote:Semi-related: there's a great Wired article on how very, very frightened they are right now.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
I would avoid buying expensive natural diamonds. They may share the fate of aluminum, once considered a precious metal.
Jim Butler is the head of a project known as Code 6174 - the Navy's diamond research arm, which is housed in a guarded facility outside Washington, DC. A civilian scientist, Butler has been been researching CVD diamond and semiconducting for the military for 16 years, long enough to see plenty of failure in the field. But today, he's more optimistic than ever.
-
johanfprins
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
- Location: Johannesbutg
- Contact:
TallDave and DeltaV,
Since I have been sponsored for 24 years by De Beers to do research on ion implantation into diamond for electronic purposes, I know a lot more about these issues, and also about Jim Butler who I have met many times. In fact he might not object when I see him as a friend.
De Beers has had a very good ride for 150 years and has always been scared that synthetic diamonds could be made. In fact the De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory was established in 1948, after Sir Ernest Oppenheimer had dinner with Sir Barney Simon (Berman-Simon line) and asked him whether there will ever be such a threat. Simon obviously answered that there is such a threat and that it will probably arise before the end of the 20th Century.
Oppenheimer then asked Simon what to do and got the advice to start a Research Laboratory AND to make diamonds available to physicists within England. Simon then advised Oppenheimer to fete a conference once a year in England since these scientits having the infrastructure at Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, etc. will gladly tell him for free what he wants to know.
Thus even today one has the British scientists being very loyal to De Beers: The question which has to be answered is whether "natural diamonds" will lose their value against synthetic diamonds. In the case of aluminium one does not have a gemstone situation. As in the case of semi-precious stones one might find that natural diamonds still retain their value as being "real" diamonds and not man-made. Prof John Angus at Case Western University dislikes this idea of "real" diamonds and always pointed out that a diamond consisting of carbon atoms is always a "real" diamond. It will be interesting to see what will happen to De Beers.
The fact is that notwithstanding their reputation as having monopolised diamond sales for many years, they have played an enormous role in the development of South Africa and opposing Apartheid. I have also found them a very decent company when they funded me; and am intensely grateful to them for having given me this opportunity after I had been fired from Pretoria University in 1977 for opposing the Apartheid government.
After the discovery of CVD diamond, Jim Butler became a player in the field of diamond. Obviously, the knowledge was in England and Jim very succesfully integrated himself into the community which had effectivekly been created and nurtured by De Beers. Unfortunately it is also the latter physics community who with the aid of the superconductor physicists at Cambridge, advised De Beers that I cannot have superconduction.
Jim is an excellent Chemist but like all scientists probably also intimidated by theoretical physicists. I have had discussions with him, and he has a copy of my original book. He asked me pointed questions about the methods I use to modify my diamond substrates: So pointed that I will not be surprised if his group did attempt to do the same. He should rather have taken up my offer for me to prepare the substrates for them. Or have they succeeeded and are holding it under the wraps for now?
I have hoped that Jim would have been willing to support me more. Maybe he is restricted from doing so. I have come to the conclusion that science is all politics!
Since I have been sponsored for 24 years by De Beers to do research on ion implantation into diamond for electronic purposes, I know a lot more about these issues, and also about Jim Butler who I have met many times. In fact he might not object when I see him as a friend.
De Beers has had a very good ride for 150 years and has always been scared that synthetic diamonds could be made. In fact the De Beers Diamond Research Laboratory was established in 1948, after Sir Ernest Oppenheimer had dinner with Sir Barney Simon (Berman-Simon line) and asked him whether there will ever be such a threat. Simon obviously answered that there is such a threat and that it will probably arise before the end of the 20th Century.
Oppenheimer then asked Simon what to do and got the advice to start a Research Laboratory AND to make diamonds available to physicists within England. Simon then advised Oppenheimer to fete a conference once a year in England since these scientits having the infrastructure at Universities like Oxford, Cambridge, etc. will gladly tell him for free what he wants to know.
Thus even today one has the British scientists being very loyal to De Beers: The question which has to be answered is whether "natural diamonds" will lose their value against synthetic diamonds. In the case of aluminium one does not have a gemstone situation. As in the case of semi-precious stones one might find that natural diamonds still retain their value as being "real" diamonds and not man-made. Prof John Angus at Case Western University dislikes this idea of "real" diamonds and always pointed out that a diamond consisting of carbon atoms is always a "real" diamond. It will be interesting to see what will happen to De Beers.
The fact is that notwithstanding their reputation as having monopolised diamond sales for many years, they have played an enormous role in the development of South Africa and opposing Apartheid. I have also found them a very decent company when they funded me; and am intensely grateful to them for having given me this opportunity after I had been fired from Pretoria University in 1977 for opposing the Apartheid government.
After the discovery of CVD diamond, Jim Butler became a player in the field of diamond. Obviously, the knowledge was in England and Jim very succesfully integrated himself into the community which had effectivekly been created and nurtured by De Beers. Unfortunately it is also the latter physics community who with the aid of the superconductor physicists at Cambridge, advised De Beers that I cannot have superconduction.
Jim is an excellent Chemist but like all scientists probably also intimidated by theoretical physicists. I have had discussions with him, and he has a copy of my original book. He asked me pointed questions about the methods I use to modify my diamond substrates: So pointed that I will not be surprised if his group did attempt to do the same. He should rather have taken up my offer for me to prepare the substrates for them. Or have they succeeeded and are holding it under the wraps for now?
I have hoped that Jim would have been willing to support me more. Maybe he is restricted from doing so. I have come to the conclusion that science is all politics!
The first applications will probably be power semiconductors and high temperature amplifiers and sensors.TallDave wrote:Semi-related: there's a great Wired article on how very, very frightened they are right now.rcain wrote:no one seems to have mentioned De Beers yet, yet to me they seem like an elephant in the room...
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html
I would avoid buying expensive natural diamonds. They may share the fate of aluminum, once considered a precious metal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Jeff Mauldin
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:41 pm
Wired article is old...
That Wired article is from 2003. I haven't noticed diamond prices dipping noticeably in the past 7 years.
This thread is taking a very interesting twist.
johanfprins, I still do not have exactly clear the movement of the charge in your hypothesis.
So, you are implying that kinetic energy to the charge carrier is applied externally before it arrives to the start of the superconductor (as example in an electric generator). The charge than reaches the start of the superconductor where the electric field nullifies and the transport to the other side occurs in a "tunnelling" fashion (kinda like what happens in a kinetic balls toy, when you let a ball drop a chain of other balls and the one at the opposite side bounces away).
At the other end of the superconductor the charge reappers with the same starting characteristics (and entropy).
Am I reading this correctly?
johanfprins, I still do not have exactly clear the movement of the charge in your hypothesis.
johanfprins wrote: To be a perfect superconductor, the kinetic energy required for a charge-carrier to move from one contact to another cannot be generated by an applied electric field AND it MUST NOT afterwards dissipate anywhere to increase the entropy of our universe
So, you are implying that kinetic energy to the charge carrier is applied externally before it arrives to the start of the superconductor (as example in an electric generator). The charge than reaches the start of the superconductor where the electric field nullifies and the transport to the other side occurs in a "tunnelling" fashion (kinda like what happens in a kinetic balls toy, when you let a ball drop a chain of other balls and the one at the opposite side bounces away).
At the other end of the superconductor the charge reappers with the same starting characteristics (and entropy).
Am I reading this correctly?
Re: Wired article is old...
They've started hitting the colored diamond market (better margins) in larger numbers in the last few years. Natural diamond producers have a large distribution channel advantage that will probably last another decade, but in the long run it's hard to see prices staying high: they're moving from a real advantage to one purely of branding. Of course, the first synthetic producers have every reason to keep the prices high as long as they can.Jeff Mauldin wrote:That Wired article is from 2003. I haven't noticed diamond prices dipping noticeably in the past 7 years.
Here's an update:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.0 ... .html?pg=6
And some other info:As a result, Gemesis, the leading manufacturer of gem-quality diamonds (see “The Diamond Wars Have Begun,” issue 11.09), has expanded operations rapidly. Three years ago, the company had 24 diamond-producing machines; now it has hundreds - matching the cash-value output of a small mine - and is turning on a new one every other day.
...
Michael Werdiger - one of only about 90 firms in the world that distribute De Beers’ diamonds - has been buying Gemesis’ yellow stones, a color that is particularly rare in nature. Because man-made yellows are increasingly plentiful, they sell for up to 75 percent less than natural yellows. Just a few wholesalers now supply Gemesis’ stones to hundreds of independent and midsize chain jewelry stores in the US, selling out every month.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond
The mined diamond industry is evaluating marketing and distribution countermeasures to the appearance of synthetic diamonds on the gem market. The three largest distributors of mined diamonds have made public statements about selling their diamonds with full disclosure of the individual diamond history, and have implemented measures to laser-inscribe serial numbers on their gemstones.[84]
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...