Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

There's lot's of ways to do it. One only has to take the first step. Michio Kaku has regular programs on the science channel. Maybe he'd be interested. Getting a little publicity could generate more interest.

I have written to Michio Kaku quite a time ago. He never responded.

Or for that matter, why not just contact Ray Kurzweil?

I am embarrassed to ask: Who is Ray Kurzwell. Remember I reside in "darkest Africa"

[just_an_observer]

Don't be - he's mostly known in America I think. Ray Kurzweil is another well known inventor and futurist - he's done some outstanding things in his own right, but actually he may not be appropriate for this after all. My thought was he'd have a vested interest in seeing his predictions come true, and he has money, however I really have no idea whether he's willing to invest in others.

[DeltaV]

If you think you can explain something like the Pod effect, that will certainly get you into SPESIF.

I do not know all the terms you are using. I assumed that the work referred to is the fact that space probes do not follow the paths predicted by accepted gravitation. Is this what you mean by the "Pod" effect? Or have I been barking up the wrong tree? Sorry if I misunderstood.

By "Pod" he means Podkletnov and his claims of gravity shielding via superconductor. SPESIF is a yearly forum for "edge of envelope" ideas in space, propulsion and energy.

Are you saying that you have a theory for the Flyby and/or Pioneer anomalies?

[GIThruster]

Yes, DeltaV has it correct and excuse me for coining the term "Pod effect". I thought it would be understandable since Pod was mentioned in this thread. fact is, I'm just lazy and can never remember how to spell his name!

[IntLibber]

Don't be - he's mostly known in America I think. Ray Kurzweil is another well known inventor and futurist - he's done some outstanding things in his own right, but actually he may not be appropriate for this after all. My thought was he'd have a vested interest in seeing his predictions come true, and he has money, however I really have no idea whether he's willing to invest in others.

I know Ray. He's currently making beaucoup bucks on the speech circuit (making about 15-25k US per talk) as well as "lecturing" at Singularity University in a joint venture with Google (SU students pay $25,000 for a 4-6 week program), about technological singularity topics and life extension. He would definitely be a good candidate to pitch polywell to for investment.

[johanfprins]

By "Pod" he means Podkletnov and his claims of gravity shielding via superconductor. SPESIF is a yearly forum for "edge of envelope" ideas in space, propulsion and energy. Are you saying that you have a theory for the Flyby and/or Pioneer anomalies?

Oh yes of course: I know about these claims. Strangely enough they seem to dovetail nicely with my mechanism for superconduction; as well as the Flyby and Pioneer anomalies; as well as the fabric of dark matter and dark energy. I have been planning to investigate these effects in more detail once I am not tied up every day to try and convince other people that I really have superconduction at room temperature and is not a crank!

But I need to do a better analysis than the preliminary deductions I have made to date before presenting anything on these topics at a conference: Or else the tag that I am a crank might really be true this time around. I do not want to claim anything unless I can prove that it is at least totally self-consistent: It is easy to end up with a model which you think works while it is riddled with inconsistencies; like for example the BCS model, the Aharanov-Bohm model, and Josephson's "tunnelling" of "Cooper Pairs", etc.

[TallDave]

Who is Ray Kurzwell.

The Singularity Is Near

A good read.

[TallDave]

By establishment SC theorists, yes. By people like us here, who are blessedly ignorant enough to have open minds, you get the benefit of some doubt until experiment proves things one way or the other.

I just thought it would be nice to be able to mention this on places on Slashdot, etc, as something more detailed than "hey there's this guy in S Africa who has a different theory of SC and has maybe discovered room temp SC" but without pasting your whole book. A short summary is usually good for piquing interest enough for someone to follow a link and read your book, and then maybe mention it someone else with an open mind and deep pockets, and next thing you know you're building superconducting chips....

You have a point. Would it generate interest if I prove from first year physics that for no superconductor ever discovered if has been proved in any manner whatsoever that the electric field within the SC is actually zero, while showing why in my case the proof that the electric feld is actually zero is incontestable? And that the BCS model cannot explain how an electric-field is cancelled? How many words in such a summary, and where should I send it.

If you can state the basics of your premise and your experiment (maybe two grafs for theory, one for the experiment) in something around 500 - 700 words, that would probably be ideal. If you post it here, I know some of us would enjoy reposting it around the Web with a link to your book, in various places where it might fall on a few sympathetic ears.

[johanfprins]

If you can state the basics of your premise and your experiment (maybe two grafs for theory, one for the experiment) in something around 500 - 700 words, that would probably be ideal. If you post it here, I know some of us would enjoy reposting it around the Web with a link to your book, in various places where it might fall on a few sympathetic ears.

Right on! I will start to compose this and post it as soon as possible: However, it is first necessary to make sure that we all understand what we are talking about. Therefore I would appreciate it if you, and anybody else reading this, would be kind enough to define what you believe a superconductor is. I have found that most people, especially the so-called experts on superconduction, are not able to give a short, clear definition of what this behaviour entails.

[Giorgio]

You will find that unfortunately people on this board have a broad range of definitions for the same word/theorem/law.
Trying to define a common starting point with basic definitions (and range of applications) has been quite troublesome until now bringing some interesting threads to a standstill.


I will give here my 0,02 US$:
It might be a good idea to have a sticky post or a section of the forum with a layman definition of the most common terminology and limits in application. Than we can use freely that terminology in posts without having to be worried anymore to be misunderstood.


As for defining a superconducting wire:
A piece of material (in the shape of a wire) that will transport a given current from its start to its end without heat generation.

From a mathematical point of view it must satisfy the following criteria:
electrical resistivity equal to zero : ro=0
or Joule Effect equal to zero : P=RI^2=0
i.e.: No power dissipation generated from the current flowing into the wire.

[johanfprins]

As for defining a superconducting wire:
A piece of material (in the shape of a wire) that will transport a given current from its start to its end without heat generation.

A much better definition than one usually finds in text books; but it is still flawed. Assume that the charge-carriers in a metal have an average free pathlength L and you have a wire of length smaller than L: There will then be no heat generation even though the wire is NOT a superconductor.

From a mathematical point of view it must satisfy the following criteria:
electrical resistivity equal to zero : ro=0
or Joule Effect equal to zero : P=RI^2=0
i.e.: No power dissipation generated from the current flowing into the wire.

Another problem: By defining a superconductor as a material with zero resistivity, you are defining one unknown in terms of another unknown. Zero resistivity has NEVER been defined in physics EVER. Thus to define a superconductor in terms of zero resistivity you must first give an independent definition for zero resistivity.

I am looking forward to you tightening up your definition of a superconductor. I am NOT trying to make fun of you here: This excercise is absolutely necessary for us to find and accept the same definition.

[johanfprins]

Have you considered taking a test drive on Millsian? Might make you better able to predict than measuring everything, which in turn might make you able to construct a cheaper, easier to test material than diamond:

I have now looked at this program and am sorry to report that it will not be of any help in my case. I can obtain results much simpler by measuring the crystal structure and the relevant electronic parameters and then modelling the superconducting phase by using the Schroedinger equation. In fact the Millsian program will not be able to give me the required information. It would be an interesting program when doing pure chemsitry.

[WizWom]

As for defining a superconducting wire:
A piece of material (in the shape of a wire) that will transport a given current from its start to its end without heat generation.

A much better definition than one usually finds in text books; but it is still flawed. Assume that the charge-carriers in a metal have an average free pathlength L and you have a wire of length smaller than L: There will then be no heat generation even though the wire is NOT a superconductor.

No, even with an average free path length >> length, you will see measurable resistivity; because the mean path is a mean, with path lengths above and below. Those that fall within the length will generate resistivity.

This applies even when you are getting into the realm of quantum effects, its been observed in the 20 nm research parts, where the uncertainty principle contributes significant leakage in FETs.

From a mathematical point of view it must satisfy the following criteria:
electrical resistivity equal to zero : ro=0
or Joule Effect equal to zero : P=RI^2=0
i.e.: No power dissipation generated from the current flowing into the wire.

Another problem: By defining a superconductor as a material with zero resistivity, you are defining one unknown in terms of another unknown. Zero resistivity has NEVER been defined in physics EVER. Thus to define a superconductor in terms of zero resistivity you must first give an independent definition for zero resistivity.

R=0 implies I(in) = I(out) and V(in) = V(out).

However, it allows one to call a vacuum tube "zero resistivity" and a "superconductor" for the vacuum travel portion, which is somewhat absurd...

A superconductor is a conductor that exhibits no voltage differential across its entirety. Which, of course, merely adds "conductor" to the zero resistivity definition.

And, of course, the model for resistivity is NOT unknown.
Theoretically, the voltage pulls outer electrons from all the atoms in the conductor and they jump from atom to atom. In this model, the resistivity occurs because there is a resistance to the loss of an electron that must be overcome for every atom in the conductor, over and over again.

In the band gap theory, a superconductor is a conductor in which the electrons continue to be excited above the valence energy of the material, and so don't undergo the resistivity mechanism.

[johanfprins]

No, even with an average free path length >> length, you will see measurable resistivity; because the mean path is a mean, with path lengths above and below. Those that fall within the length will generate resistivity.

Do you not know that one can generate a permanently flowing curent around a mesoscopic ring of gold when the circumference of the ring is less than the mean free path? How do you explain this?

This applies even when you are getting into the realm of quantum effects, its been observed in the 20 nm research parts, where the uncertainty principle contributes significant leakage in FETs.

Leakage or resistvity?

R=0 implies I(in) = I(out) and V(in) = V(out).

However, it allows one to call a vacuum tube "zero resistivity" and a "superconductor" for the vacuum travel portion, which is somewhat absurd...

Aha!! You are getting there! I commend you!

A superconductor is a conductor that exhibits no voltage differential across its entirety.

You have an inkling but it is still woolly. So let me hone it a bit: A superconductor is a phase through which a current can flow while the applied electric-field is cancelled everywhere within the superconductor.

Which, of course, merely adds "conductor" to the zero resistivity definition.

An "implication of zero resistivity" to which you merely add the word "conductor" can in no ways be a rational argument and does not constitute any physics-logic.

And, of course, the model for resistivity is NOT unknown.

I have NOT asked for a model for resistivity: I have asked for a definition of zero resistivity which you could not give me. An "implication" is NOT a "definition".

In the band gap theory, a superconductor is a conductor in which the electrons continue to be excited above the valence energy of the material, and so don't undergo the resistivity mechanism.

The same happens in a semimetal, but the metal still has a resistivity. How are the electrons excited within a superconductor and why is the energy they gain by being excited not deposited as heat within the superconductor?

[bennmann]

That almost sounds like a denial of deductive reasoning, but really it's a denial of the specific deduction. Worth keeping in mind.