Room-temperature superconductivity?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Postby pfrit » Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:26 pm

johanfprins wrote:
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.


He has some credibility and knows many people. He is capable of testing certain things himself and would probably be willing to. At the end of the day, he has connections. It would be worth while if only to get names of people who are actively looking at novel superconductors who might be willing to examine your work.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:29 pm

BenTC wrote: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?


I apologise for not coming over more clearly.

In my argument I assume that we do not know the charge on a charge-carrier and thus choose it to be the unknown quantity q. I then argue logically in terms of impeccable physics that the radiation must be proportional to 2qV.

Then I point out that the measured radiation has been found to be 2eV where e is the charge of a single electron. Thus the charge carriers which cause the radiation must have a charge q which is exactly the same as the electron charge. They can thus not be doubly-charged as they must be if they are Cooper pairs.

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

Postby johanfprins » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:33 pm

pfrit wrote: He has some credibility and knows many people. He is capable of testing certain things himself and would probably be willing to. At the end of the day, he has connections. It would be worth while if only to get names of people who are actively looking at novel superconductors who might be willing to examine your work.


Thanks I will surely try this route.

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

Postby DeltaV » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:28 pm

Once you've established patent protection, maybe you could contact some companies that produce synthetic diamond, to see if they might help fund research or provide facilities.

Found these so far:
http://www.sp3diamondtech.com/
http://www.usapplieddiamond.com/
http://www.advanceddiamond.com/
http://www.cvd-diamond.com/

They could be motivated by financial gains due to increased market size, even if they don't own the patent(s).

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

Postby johanfprins » Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:31 am

DeltaV wrote:Once you've established patent protection, maybe you could contact some companies that produce synthetic diamond, to see if they might help fund research or provide facilities.

Found these so far:
http://www.sp3diamondtech.com/
http://www.usapplieddiamond.com/
http://www.advanceddiamond.com/
http://www.cvd-diamond.com/

They could be motivated by financial gains due to increased market size, even if they don't own the patent(s).


Thanks: I will try. There is one problem though and that is the following: I had a very high profile in diamond research (check my citation index) but since I have announced at a the European Diamond Conference in Budapest in 2001 that I have discovered superconduction at room temperature, the diamond physics community has shunned me and blocked me from getting anything published through any diamond conference since.

Suddenly I have been classified as a crank who must be ignored. The diamond physics community is very well connected. But I will visit these websites and see.
Thanks again.

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

Postby GIThruster » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:06 pm

johanfprins wrote:
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!


What have you used to test the substrates in the past? Are they inexpensive enough to fabricate that you can send them around easily, or are they expensive and fragile? If I can find someone willing to test them, is anything necessary past putting them in the 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:

Postby johanfprins » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:51 pm

GIThruster wrote: What have you used to test the substrates in the past? Are they inexpensive enough to fabricate that you can send them around easily, or are they expensive and fragile? If I can find someone willing to test them, is anything necessary past putting them in the mail?


I did could not do much more than to measure voltage-current relationships. The great problem is then to eliminate contact resistances. This we did by using contacts at different distances and extrapolating to infinite lengths. We reproducibly got zero resistivity. I know that this is not very satisfactory; but one has to do the same with any other superconductor ever discovered.

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.

To prepare such substates is not a problem except for the fact that within my garage equipment I cannot use diamond substrates larger than about 6 mmsquare. They can be easily prepared and mailed anywhere. What is needed for a laboratory testing these substrates is NOT to reinvent the wheel; especially when it comes to making contacts. It will require total trust on both sides with a non-disclosure agreement to proceed.

The initial costs to establish trust is probably moderate. My highest costs will soon be to file the patent worldwide.

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

Postby GIThruster » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:58 pm

So we start to see the beginnings of the trouble here.

Explaining the physics is not what you need to be after. If you are correct, that will be shown well after the objective physical evidence makes the case. This can't be done the other way around.

In order to test the substrate for true superconductivity, and show evidence sufficient to convince someone like an investor, you have to have a really good test. I find that unlikely with just 6mm substrates. I'm not an EE so I can't say, but let me ask, what would it take for you to build much larger samples, not necessarily square but long rectangles would be very useful in testing, I would think.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14310
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:00 am

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:

http://www.geocities.com/spm_stm/

here are others:

http://web.archive.org/web/200206061509 ... page21.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/spm/

http://www.e-basteln.de/

http://sxm4.uni-muenster.de/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

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

Postby GIThruster » Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:35 am

That's a fascinating idea though I don't quite understand how you would determine if you have a true superconductor. I imagine it has less to do with mapping the surface as it does with measuring how easily you can induce a current across the gap?

What sort of prediction would you make about how an STM ought to respond to a superconductor? How would you use it to test if you have a superconductor?

Personally, as an investor I would want to seek out someone who does STM work regularly and have them characterize the material, rather than build one from scratch.
"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

Postby pfrit » Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:37 am

johanfprins wrote:
GIThruster wrote: What have you used to test the substrates in the past? Are they inexpensive enough to fabricate that you can send them around easily, or are they expensive and fragile? If I can find someone willing to test them, is anything necessary past putting them in the mail?


I did could not do much more than to measure voltage-current relationships. The great problem is then to eliminate contact resistances. This we did by using contacts at different distances and extrapolating to infinite lengths. We reproducibly got zero resistivity. I know that this is not very satisfactory; but one has to do the same with any other superconductor ever discovered.

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.

To prepare such substates is not a problem except for the fact that within my garage equipment I cannot use diamond substrates larger than about 6 mmsquare. They can be easily prepared and mailed anywhere. What is needed for a laboratory testing these substrates is NOT to reinvent the wheel; especially when it comes to making contacts. It will require total trust on both sides with a non-disclosure agreement to proceed.

The initial costs to establish trust is probably moderate. My highest costs will soon be to file the patent worldwide.


Preamble: I am not an SME. I know nothing and I talk to squirrels.

I can think of a few easy tests you could do in a garage that would lead to interesting charts. It should be very easy to read the temp of the substrate as it is diamond (very good thermal conductor) so you could test for resistence in the superconductor by the heat given off by the substrate. If you pass a small charge over the superconductor and measure the change in temp of the diamond and account for the heat given off by the contacts you should be able to increase the current to the point that the superconductor breaks down and you get a large change in temp. The change in temp given off by the contacts should show a very regular curve so when the superconductor breaks down, the curve should change. By changing the ambient temp, you could plot out the maximum current of the supersonductor and plot the Tc of it.

Also if you assume that only some of the sample is actually in the correct configuartion to be a superconductor (a reasonable assumption) lowering the temp should show new islands of superconductor appearing.

I would also imagine you could rig up a cheap electromagnet to try to overload the superconduction. That would give valuable data if you vary the temp and/or current at the same time.

Also if you cut your substance up into bits and pressed it into a hightemp superconductor and measured the change in resistence as you raised the temp above the bulk superconductors Tc. You should get a very different plot from the bulk superconductor alone. That might require more equiptment than you have in the garage, however. Indeed, the easiest may be to replace your contacts with some YBCO of a known Tc and cool it below its threshold. If your sample is a superconductor, there would be easy to read zero conductance. That would be a convincing demonstration that you have a superconductor at least as good as the YBCO.
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

hanelyp
Posts: 2176
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:56 am

johanfprins wrote:... since I have announced at a the European Diamond Conference in Budapest in 2001 that I have discovered superconduction at room temperature, the diamond physics community has shunned me and blocked me from getting anything published through any diamond conference since.

I think I see your problem. You made an extraordinary claim with only weak evidence to support it. You should have done better with a more limited claim, such as resistivity below your capacity to accurately measure.

The Meissner effect may not prove superconductivity, but it would be good evidence.

What kind of substrate do you use? It is conductive? Does the thickness of the film impact results?

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

Postby johanfprins » Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:31 am

GIThruster wrote:So we start to see the beginnings of the trouble here.

Explaining the physics is not what you need to be after. If you are correct, that will be shown well after the objective physical evidence makes the case. This can't be done the other way around.

In order to test the substrate for true superconductivity, and show evidence sufficient to convince someone like an investor, you have to have a really good test. I find that unlikely with just 6mm substrates. I'm not an EE so I can't say, but let me ask, what would it take for you to build much larger samples, not necessarily square but long rectangles would be very useful in testing, I would think.


Well I am pretty certain that once an investor has gone through my patent he/she will be convinced. For example, I prove in my patent why the present ceramic materials will not reach a critical temperature more than about 250 K; and then define the additional properties a material must have to go higher than this. In other words the patent really gives a method to ensure that a material has the potential to superconduct. Just think how much money will be saved in the research costs which are being squandered at the moment to look haphazardly for higher temperature superconductors.

Furthermore, if I have the typical equipment that you can find in semiconductor fab, I will be able to do 4-point contact measurements.

To do larger substrates is possible but it will require a new vacuum-system and in addition access to an ion implanter. I do not have the money for either of them. The system I am using to modify the 4x6 mmsq substrates at the moment is really Heath-Robinson and when I use it, I have to rent the required power supplies.

I do not expect that an investor should invest big money before he is convinced. He should first look at what I have, and then suggest additional modifications and measurements he would like us to do. The cost of such an initial investigation is miniscule compared to the benefits if I am right.

As far as generating s superconducting phase by extracting electrons into the vacuum which then transfer charge from the diamond substrate to the anode, I know I am totally correct. The substrates which I have developed since, conduct parallel to the diamond's surface. I am also convinced that they are superconducting, but would also like to do more measurements. The only problem is that I do not have the equipment and cannot afford it.

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

Postby johanfprins » Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:44 am

pfrit wrote: I can think of a few easy tests you could do in a garage that would lead to interesting charts. It should be very easy to read the temp of the substrate as it is diamond (very good thermal conductor) so you could test for resistence in the superconductor by the heat given off by the substrate. etc.


Yes it is easy to think up experiments if you still think in terms of the old paradigms. The fact is that the superconductor is a thin layer at the diamond's surface. All your suggestions require technical modifications and equipment I do not have and cannot afford. Neither am I willing to spell these out on this forum since there is IP involved.

IF you are living in the USA, you probably do not realise that an amount of $20000 is enormous here in Soth Africa. I remember an American advising me at a conference to buy a RIE sytem: "It is only $20000". He did not realise that at that stage it was my whole budget for a year.

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

Postby johanfprins » Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:05 am

hanelyp wrote: I think I see your problem. You made an extraordinary claim with only weak evidence to support it. You should have done better with a more limited claim, such as resistivity below your capacity to accurately measure. The Meissner effect may not prove superconductivity, but it would be good evidence.

What kind of substrate do you use? It is conductive? Does the thickness of the film impact results?


The evidence was not and is still not weak. The evidence is better than the evidence EVER given for another superconducting phase since I could and still can prove by using the same physics being used everyday to generate solid state devices that there CANNOT be an electric field within the phase. Show me ANY other superconducting phase for which this can be proved in an equivalent fashion and I will kiss you somewhere where the sun rarely shines.

And by the way: What I claimed is that I have EVIDENCE indicating that superconduction MAY BE occurring at room temperature.

As should be clear from the discussion above, I am using diamond substrates at the moment and since I am limited in equipment, these layers are very thin. I am not willing to say how thin since it involves IP.

I agree that the Meissner effect will be additional evidence but am not in the position to demonstrate it by levitation,. Neither do I have equipment to measure the magnetic properties of these layers. All that I can forcefully say is that if these layers are not superconducting, no bipolar transistor would have been able to function.

The fact is the following: The Meissner check is used because for all other superconductors discovered to date there is NO PROOF that there is NO ELECTRIC FIELD present. In my phase the proof is incontrovertible; and the experiment gives the physics how this is possible. It thus also proves that models like the BCS model is wrong since these models cannot explain how an electric field is being cancelled within a superconductor.

Within an hour I am flying to the Cape Province to visit our grandchildren. Thus for a few weeks, my responses will not be as regular as they have been.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests