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 » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:44 pm

GIThruster wrote:If this substrate is easy enough to make and test, rather than pressing first for a wire-like version (which I agree with DeltaV is an extraordinarily useful and potent technology), I would immediately characterize your substrate through as much frequency as possible. One of the troubles with things like YBCO is there has never been enough characterization at high frequency. If however you're looking at room temperature substrates, characterizing them right up into the Ghz range could demonstrate what VAST possibilities exist for future electronics.


Wonderful idea: Would you be kind enough to vist me and wave your arms in my garage to generate these frequencies? PLEASE: I AM A PENSIONER WITH NO MONEY AND/OR LABORATORY FACILITIES WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR 10 YEARS TO GET FINANCIAL SUPPORT. THE SUPERCONDUCTOR PHYSICS CHURCH HAS BEEN BLOCKING ME ALL THE WAY. YOU HAVE TO REALISE THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD THAT IS FAR WORSE THAN THE ONE GALILEO EXPERIENCED. Sorry for th capital letters; but I am getting deperate: Not for myself anymore (my age precludes that) but for the world my lovely grandchildren is inhereting!!

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

Postby johanfprins » Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:55 pm

Dear GIThruster,

Your comments are spot on: But I have lost faith in the ability of the USA to be objective when it comes to issues like these. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory was approached by a high ranking person who used to advise them, asking them to repeat my experiment. At first there was enthusiasm until they called in thier "experts on superconduction" who advised against it using the most assinine arguments I have ever read.

It is thus not surprising to me that the USA will soon be totally dependent on Russia to launch their astronauts into space. What a sad decline from the days when I did my PhD in the USA during the 1960's.

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

Postby GIThruster » Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:04 pm

Yes well, it's not you, it's not science, it's not some select group of people. This is the situation we have always had. In science, religion, even matters of love, people are always resistant to change that entails a paradigm shift.

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scienti ... =8-1-spell

Personally, I know people who could characterize your substrate, but they need to be paid for their time; which is why you need first to find an investor.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

ladajo
Posts: 5925
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:23 pm

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this forum.
You just NEVER know who is going to show up.

As silly as this sounds, why not get an Undergrad to repeat this and publish that way in the US. It gets some visbility and it does not harm the student either way? Even a Graduate paper could apply, maybe someone at NPS in Monterey would pick it up, they have done crazier stuff out there.

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

Postby pfrit » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:26 pm

This may sound stupid, but may I suggest you contact Joe Eck? He seems to be able to do quite a few things in his garage and may be able to help. His website is www.superconductors.org
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

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

Postby GIThruster » Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:38 pm

ladajo wrote:I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this forum.
You just NEVER know who is going to show up.

As silly as this sounds, why not get an Undergrad to repeat this and publish that way in the US. It gets some visbility and it does not harm the student either way? Even a Graduate paper could apply, maybe someone at NPS in Monterey would pick it up, they have done crazier stuff out there.


I don't think he needs to replicate a fabrication process and that would entail playing too loosely with his trade secrets. Rather, he needs to have the existing material characterized. It doesn't matter how he made it at this point. What matters is if it can do what he says it can do, and all that's required to find out is a talented PhD EE.

I've already written one and I'll write privately if I get some interest. Just understand, the kind of guy you need to test this material usually makes about $250k/year. They almost never work for free. You might get some action here if you cut the right person a piece of your IP, but better is to make that sort of agreement with an investor and have her pay for your validation study.

This kind of work is often VERY expensive. I'm not an EE, but I can tell you, if you need to measure for extraordinarily low resistance, it's not like you can use a $10 meter from Radio Shack. I haven't read all at the links, but lets ask some simple questions:

--Is the material highly anisotropic?

--Is it highly frequency dependent?

--Is it highly temperature dependent?

--Is it truly useful in it's current form, or does it need to be developed?

I once had a patent holder offer me 5% if I could bring him investment sufficient to turn his hyper-conductor material into a useful material which he said would require development funds to the tune of of $18 million. What he had (he said) was a material that conducts 100,000 X better than copper. It's highly anisotropic and to turn it into wire, he said would cost $18 million.

Well hell, who has that kind of money to find out if they have a useful material?

If what you have is something that can/could/should be used in electronics, then discussions of fabrication and fixing other people's physics are all secondary. First is to show you have what you say you have. Everything other follows thereafter.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Postby DeltaV » Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:31 am

This is from the BCS theory crowd:
Doped graphane: a prototype high-Tc electron-phonon superconductor
We show by first-principles calculations that p-doped graphane is a conventional superconductor
with a critical temperature (Tc) above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen. The unique strength of
the chemical bonds between carbon atoms and the large density of electronic states at the Fermi
energy arising from the reduced dimensionality synergetically push Tc above 90K, and give rise
to large Kohn anomalies in the optical phonon dispersions. As evidence of graphane was recently
reported, and doping of related materials such as graphene, diamond and carbon nanostructures is
well established, superconducting graphane may be feasible.

I thought this part was interesting given this thread's topic:
It is immediate to extend the present study to diamond
nanowires
, which have been the subject of intense inves-
tigations in the past few years[64]. For a 1d system the
EDOS near a band edge has a van Hove singularity going
as E−1/2[29]. We can assume phonon energies and EPC
to be similar to bulk diamond and graphane. Then Eq.1
would yield Tc as high as 150K for a 1nm nanowire (see
EDOS in Fig.1(a)). The possibility of achieving Tc higher
than copper oxides by exploiting dimensionality deserves
further investigation. Our work suggests that p-doped
diamond nanostructures have an intriguing potential for
high-Tc BCS-like superconductivity
.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:53 am

ladajo wrote:I ABSOLUTELY LOVE this forum.
You just NEVER know who is going to show up.

As silly as this sounds, why not get an Undergrad to repeat this and publish that way in the US. It gets some visbility and it does not harm the student either way? Even a Graduate paper could apply, maybe someone at NPS in Monterey would pick it up, they have done crazier stuff out there.


Where will I get an undergraduate to register at my garage university? This was my object already in 2002. I could not get the financal support required at the Universities and therefore I had to turn to writing books.

It is easy to make suggestions which sound logical but requires contacts and finances I do not have. After the treatment I got in South Africa I have resigned from the South Adfrican Institute of Physics.

Please just accept that I have been blocked all the way from pursuing my experiments any futher within an institution which can finance it or supply any other people to repeat it. It is clear that those dynasaurs in charge of superconduction know about me and are doing everything they can to stop me in my tracks.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:05 am

pfrit wrote:This may sound stupid, but may I suggest you contact Joe Eck? He seems to be able to do quite a few things in his garage and may be able to help. His website is www.superconductors.org


I will follow this up, but as GIThruster correctly points out, my next step requires far more than a garage laboratory. So I suspect that Joe Eck will not be of much help.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:36 am

GIThruster wrote: I don't think he needs to replicate a fabrication process and that would entail playing too loosely with his trade secrets. Rather, he needs to have the existing material characterized. It doesn't matter how he made it at this point. What matters is if it can do what he says it can do, and all that's required to find out is a talented PhD EE.


Correct! I have made this offer on my website, but so far no response.

GIThruster wrote: They almost never work for free. You might get some action here if you cut the right person a piece of your IP, but better is to make that sort of agreement with an investor and have her pay for your validation study.


I am open to all possibilities for cooperation. There is interest, but not from countries I would like to work with. But if it comes to the crunch, I will have no other option.

GIThruster wrote:I haven't read all at the links, but lets ask some simple questions:

--Is the material highly anisotropic?


Diamond is used at the moment as a prototype substrate. Other materials in the pipeline are anisotropic. The advantage of modifying a diamond substrate is that one can even use a suitable polycrystalline substrate. There are companies, also in the USA, which at present grow such substrates by plasma assisted chemical vapour deposition.

GIThruster wrote:--Is it highly frequency dependent?

I do not know since I do not have the equipment to test this aspect. The fact is that a superconducting phase is really an ideal dielectric. Thus all superconductors will dissipate energy when you apply a high frequency ac-electric field to them.

GIThruster wrote:--Is it highly temperature dependent?


The diamond substrate deteriorates at about 500 Celsius: The superconducting phase does not. Thus it is not even possible to measure the critical temperature of this phase since it is higher than 500 Celsius.

GIThruster wrote:--Is it truly useful in it's current form, or does it need to be developed?

All the prototype can demonstrate at present is that you have a substrate that is superconducting over its whole surface at room and higher temperatures. Further development will require micromachining to make useful devices.

GIThruster wrote:I once had a patent holder offer me 5% if I could bring him investment sufficient to turn his hyper-conductor material into a useful material which he said would require development funds to the tune of of $18 million. What he had (he said) was a material that conducts 100,000 X better than copper. It's highly anisotropic and to turn it into wire, he said would cost $18 million.
Well hell, who has that kind of money to find out if they have a useful material?

I have a good idea who this patent holder is since I also had a run-in with him. Although he is working with materials which might superconduct when modified corectly, I doubt whether he understands how to do this.

GIThruster wrote:If what you have is something that can/could/should be used in electronics, then discussions of fabrication and fixing other people's physics are all secondary. First is to show you have what you say you have. Everything other follows thereafter.


I am trying to do exactly this. But nobody wants to test whether what I claim is correct. The consequences are probably just to great since it will affect all theoretical physics that has been done since 1930: Carver Mead predicted that the last seven decades of the 20th Century will become known as the Dark Ages of theoretical physics. My work seems to give the reasons why Carver Mead is a true prophet!

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:56 am

DeltaV wrote: This is from the BCS theory crowd:
Doped graphane: a prototype high-Tc electron-phonon superconductor


I can assure you that one day in the future we all have a good laugh at these studies. Superconduction does not work in the way that they are modelling it. They are barking up the wrong tree.

Consider the following: Any superconductor MUST have the following charcteristic: The charge-carriers must all have the same lowest ground state energy whether they are at the injection contact or at the ejection contact. This is why there cannot be an electric-field within the superconductor.

Now place a insulating "tunnelling" junction in the middle of such a SC and place a voltage V across it. The charge carriers with charge q on the one side of the junction is lowered by qV relative to the charge-carriers on the other side of the junction. Furthermore, when a charge-varrier on the high-energy side moves through the junction it is accelerated to gain energy qV. Thus to join the charge-carriers on the low energy side such a charge-carrier must radiate away energy equal to 2qV.

Guess what is measured experimentally? It is found that the radiation relates to an energy of 2eV where e is the charge of the electron. Thus the charge carriers are singly-charged: NOT PAIRS! Although pair formation in a superconductor is not excluded I doubt that any superconductor discovered to date has charge-carriers which are doubly-charged!

Thus all calculations based on the formation of Cooper pairs have been just pure bollox!

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:01 am

DeltaV wrote: This is from the BCS theory crowd:
Doped graphane: a prototype high-Tc electron-phonon superconductor


I can assure you that one day in the future we all have a good laugh at these studies. Superconduction does not work in the way that they are modelling it. They are barking up the wrong tree.

Consider the following: Any superconductor MUST have the following charcteristic: The charge-carriers must all have the same lowest ground state energy whether they are at the injection contact or at the ejection contact. This is why there cannot be an electric-field within the superconductor.

Now place a insulating "tunnelling" junction in the middle of such a SC and place a voltage V across it. The charge carriers with charge q on the one side of the junction is lowered by qV relative to the charge-carriers on the other side of the junction. Furthermore, when a charge-varrier on the high-energy side moves through the junction it is accelerated to gain energy qV. Thus to join the charge-carriers on the low energy side such a charge-carrier must radiate away energy equal to 2qV.

Guess what is measured experimentally? It is found that the radiation relates to an energy of 2eV where e is the charge of the electron. Thus the charge carriers are singly-charged: NOT PAIRS! Although pair formation in a superconductor is not excluded I doubt that any superconductor discovered to date has charge-carriers which are doubly-charged!

Thus all calculations based on the formation of Cooper pairs have been just pure bollox!

ladajo
Posts: 5925
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Postby ladajo » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:04 pm

Johan,
My thought was based in the fact there are a number of undergrad, graduate and Phd candidates who frequent this site, and they also have friends.
Someone out there may have a connection that can work for you.
Thinking out loud, not trying to detract from you past trivails.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:18 pm

ladajo wrote:Johan,
My thought was based in the fact there are a number of undergrad, graduate and Phd candidates who frequent this site, and they also have friends.
Someone out there may have a connection that can work for you.
Thinking out loud, not trying to detract from you past trivails.


I appreciate what you have said and apologise if I came back as if I was reprimanding you. That was not my intention: I do have a problem by stating my opinion in a manner which could have been more diplomatic.

Obviously you are correct, if a PhD student wants an interesting topic right on the forefront of physics I could be of great help. But since I am not an active reacher at a University anymore, I cannot help such a student directly as an advisor. Neither can I help with any funding: I am now in need of the latter.

BenTC
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Postby BenTC » Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:50 pm

Excuse my naivety, two things I don't follow:

1. How are 2qV and 2eV different?

2. You say "It is found that the radiation relates to an energy of 2eV where e is the charge of the electron" which would seem to indicate a pair of electrons, but then say "Thus the charge carriers are singly-charged: NOT PAIRS." Could you expand on that?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests