Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

At the atomic level, cuprates are classified as a "many-body system" — essentially a vast collection of electrons that interact with each other. Such systems are usually described using quantum mechanics. However, so far, physicists have found it difficult to describe cuprates, because their behavior is so different from other materials. Understanding that behavior could help physicists find new materials that superconduct at even higher temperatures. These new materials would have potentially limitless applications.

Unlike most materials, cuprates do not obey Fermi's laws, a set of quantum-mechanics principles that govern microscopic behavior at very low temperatures (close to absolute zero, or -273 degrees Celsius). Instead, cuprates become superco The strangenductors. Just above the temperature at which they begin to superconduct, they enter a state called the "strange metal" state.

In this study, the researchers focused on two properties that distinguish those cuprate strange metals from Fermi liquids. In ordinary Fermi liquids, electrical resistivity and the rates of electron scattering (deflection from their original course caused by interactions with each other) are both proportional to the temperature squared. However, in cuprates (and other superconducting non-Fermi liquids), electron scattering and resistivity are proportional to the temperature. "There's really no theory of how to explain that," says Liu.

Johan, can your theory explain that?

Sorry DeltaV; I missed this posting until now. I believe that my model can describe these effects very well: I, however, stopped trying to publish this since once I point out that a superconductor phase IS NOT A METAL, then I get the reaction that we got from GIThruster on this forum: I should NOT "redefine" what a superconductor is but exaplain my model in terms of the wrong definitions already accepted as correct.

I cannot discuss this specific material in detail on this forum, and also do not have the time to do all the calculations. Suffice to say that I would have been VERY surprised if the non-superconducting charge-carriers formed a Fermi-liquid.

What happens in most of the ceramic superconductors is that there are donors WITHIN the crystallographic layers which donate electrons which, in turn, form the insulating superconducting array of localised orbitals at a lower energy BETWEEN the layers. This leaves positive charges behind within the crystallographic layers. While the tremperature decreases the Fermi-level moves down from the donor-energy positions towards the energy of the superconducting orbitals between the layers.

Conduction within the crytallographic layers can in this case occur before superconduction sets in (between the layers) by means of electrons tunnelling from non-ionised donors to next neighbour ionised donors. I am convinced that it is this conduction that they claim to be a "strange metal" . Measuring the charge on charge carriers when nearest neighbour hopping occurs can be confusing, but I expect that in most cases this strange metal might be displaying hole conduction.

In the low temperature metals the electrons at higher energies are wave packets (pseudo particles) and they will conduct like a Fermi-liquid while the Fermi-level lies above the superconducting gap. No "strange metal" forms until superconduction sets in as soon as the Fermi level moves into the gap. In the ceramics the Fermi-level already lies within the gap and the strange metal conduction observed before SC sets in can thus only be caused by a process akin to NN-hopping. Only when the localised charge carriers between the layers reaches a high enough density does SC start.

In all superconductors the Fermi-level moves towards the energy of the superconducting orbitals and will end up at these orbitals at a low enough temperature. Thus the superconducting energy gap you measure with changing temperature is the gap between the Fermi-level and the top of the gap. I have NEVER measured a Fermi-level that does NOT move within an energy gap when changing the temperature (as is claimed for BCS). In the ceramics it is even possible that at a lower temperature the localised orbital-density becomes so high that they overlap to form a band of states with the Fermi-level at their energy position. If this happens, superconduction then becomes impossible and you will probably measure metallic conduction for which the charge-carriers are now negatively charged.

I think "string theory" is most cranky thing I have heard of in my lifetime!

[GIThruster]

it's because he's gotten weighed down in explanations that for ten years, no one has examined the claims in depth.

This is a blatant lie and take severe exeption to it.

I discovered in 2000 that a "material" (if you do not want to call it a phase; which it really is) forms from electrons between an n-type diamond surface and an anode when these electrons are extracted from the diamond. From impeccable electronic interface physics it can be proved that when a equilibrium thermodynamic state is reached, there IS NO, AND CANNOT BE an electric field between the diamond's surface and the anode. This proof folows from SIMPLE fisrt year physics; which any of my students could understand before reaching second year.

Experimentally I then found that after equilibrium is reached an equilibrium current keeps on flowing around the circuit: Thus PROVING without ANY doubt that charge is transferred from the diamond to the anode while there is NO electric-field present. It is THE FIRST experiment in the history of science that proves WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that charge can be transferred through a material while the electric field within the material IS ZERO. This has NEVER been proved for any other material EVER.

The PROOF rests on simple elementary physics and is self-evident: But suddenly the "experts" could not, or are not willing to, understand this physics; which is used every day to model and design electronic chips. If they were able to follow elementary physics, I would NOT have spent all my time to find the faults in the accepted mainstream dogma. How else can I defend myself against a barrage of nonsensical physics (from people who cannot even follow first year physics) without getting "bogged down in explanations." I had to do it since the "experts" on superconduction are incapable of understanding simple solid state electronic devices.

It is amazing that this is so since their chief Guru who led them up the garden path is John Bardeen who together with Schottky received the Nobel Prize for discovering the transistor. Maybe there is some thruth in the rumour that Schottky considered Bardeen to be incompetent?

Johan, it is not a lie, it is the precise truth. Your work is being systematically ignored because you have made several severe errors in human relations, demonstrated by the fact you are as rude and obnoxious as anyone I have ever met on the web. Even when surrounded by people interested to help you out, you just cannot manage civil behavior. Fact is, despite your advanced age, were you to speak to me the way you write to me, I would give you slap therapy right into the next century.

Lets put your feeble social skills to the side however, and look at the real issue: you obviously cannot tell the difference between explanation and observation. Every time the issue of evidence comes up, you post a lengthy discussion of your explanation, rather than pointing to simple observation. This is why for ten years you are getting nowhere--because you can't communicate like an adult. With you it's always blaming others for your own failings. I'm tired of it and just have run out of patience.

For weeks I've been trying to aid you but honestly, you DESERVE the troubles you're having because you don't treat anyone with the simple respect you so crave for yourself. It's a wonder someone hasn't slapped some sense into you in years past. I'm just astonished anyone can have the arrogance you have, and the near psychotic need to judge the world, and live to your ripe old age.

How did that happen? And you tell all of us, how is it that in all three attempts to get some observation by someone else--the paid physicist who replicated your work, and the two groups you sent your substrates to for testing--how is it you haven't got ANYTHING TO SHARE about that and still claim foul, that no one listens to you?

Seems obvious to me plenty of people have heard you out and tested your work. The trouble is, you somehow don't have access to their findings?

Something stinks. . .and you are really pressing us all past credibility.

[bennmann]

GIThuster you might want to consider just recommending a person goes to a professional therapist next time. Unless, of course, you happen to have the relevant degrees and training (in which case I retract this post).

That was harsh, even for a patient man.

Johan, I would consider going to a professional therapist and showing them this thread. Maybe GIThruster is right, maybe he is wrong. Seems worth investigating though and getting a professional opinion on, especially if he is right and your personality is effecting your ability to change the world with your discoveries.

[johanfprins]

Johan, it is not a lie, it is the precise truth. Your work is being systematically ignored because you have made several severe errors in human relations, demonstrated by the fact you are as rude and obnoxious as anyone I have ever met on the web.

So the overuling criteron to judge new physics is whether the person reporting its is "rude and obnoxious" or not! No wonder physics is in the quagmire it is! If this criterion should be valid then Heisenberg's model of quantum mechanics should have been rejected after he called Schroedinger's equation "crap".

Even when surrounded by people interested to help you out, you just cannot manage civil behavior.

Funny I feel the same about you. I doubt whether you are really a "Stahl" who wants to help.

You obviously cannot tell the difference between explanation and observation.

Another blatant and vicious lie: And you have the arrogance to question MY social skills?

Every time the issue of evidence comes up, you post a lengthy discussion of your explanation, rather than pointing to simple observation.

The observations have been reported in detail. Maybe you do not understand that in physics you need to explain experimental results. This is how physics has always been practised. Did Bohr have to prove experimentally that it is actually point electrons jumping from one energy-level to another to have his explanation of the atom published? Please do not be so childish!

This is why for ten years you are getting nowhere--because you can't communicate like an adult.

And you can!!?? Oh my God!

With you it's always blaming others for your own failings.

Which failings? My results are correct and my physics is correct. So where have I failed?

I'm tired of it and just have run out of patience.

Tired of what and running out of patience because you could not bulldoze me to use your wrong and useless definition for superconduction?

For weeks I've been trying to aid you

You could have fooled me!

but honestly, you DESERVE the troubles you're having because you don't treat anyone with the simple respect you so crave for yourself.

So again you confirm that you believe that new physics should judged on whether the person who generates it is a "nice guy" or not: Jesus help us! I am NOT craving "respect" but to communicate with people who understand elementary physics whether they respect me or not.

It's a wonder someone hasn't slapped some sense into you in years past. I'm just astonished anyone can have the arrogance you have, and the near psychotic need to judge the world, and live to your ripe old age.

So when I report the truth of what has happened by quoting editors and referees, I have a "psychotic need to judge the world". Really I think it is YOU who are in neeed of psychiatric help: Not me.

How did that happen? And you tell all of us, how is it that in all three attempts to get some observation by someone else--the paid physicist who replicated your work, and the two groups you sent your substrates to for testing--how is it you haven't got ANYTHING TO SHARE about that

Because it is a fact that they did not communicate any results to me. In the case of the paid physicist his sponsors confirmed that he reproduced all my results and even got a photograph of the phase. But he and his sponsors are now having problems; and he refuses to wrie a final report. I am not even supposed to know this. But now you want to blame ME for that! Are you completely out of your mind?

and still claim foul, that no one listens to you?

Well this is a fact, and if you read my book I quote these facts. Why it happens cannot be hung around my neck even if I am an unpleasant fellow: which by the way I have not been in these cases. Physics is just not judged in the manner you are judging mine except by somebody who is out of his mind.

Seems obvious to me plenty of people have heard you out and tested your work.

If it is so "obvious" prove it!

The trouble is, you somehow don't have access to their findings?

Correct! This is a fact about which I can do NOTHING!

Something stinks.

Yes something does and in this conversation it is YOU!. .

and you are really pressing us all past credibility.

Where have I done this in the physics-logic I have posted on tis forum. Please talk physics and do not act like a child because you "do not like my attitude". By doing this you are only proving that you are not fit to judge ANYTHING objectively: Your emotions overwhelm you. Even though I am obnoxious and unpleasant I will NEVER sink so low.

[johanfprins]

Johan, I would consider going to a professional therapist and showing them this thread. Maybe GIThruster is right, maybe he is wrong. Seems worth investigating though and getting a professional opinion on, especially if he is right and your personality is effecting your ability to change the world with your discoveries.

I agree fully and would not mind doing so. I also agree that I sometimes have the tendency to shoot off; similarly to how GIThruster has done now. But I doubt whether I have EVER gone as low as he has just done. Nonetheless, if new physics is judged by the personality of the man who discovered and reports it, then our planet is really in trouble! If GIThruster has anything to contribute on this forum he should stick to physics-facts: These have absolutely NOTHING to do with my extremely unpleasant and obnoxious personality.

[icarus]

It is not about personalities. These are facts in as simple form as I can perceive (trying not to cast any aspersions here).

i) Prins is claiming irrefutable experimental evidence of a revolutionary new theory for superconductivity.

ii) Prins is requesting financial exchanges before revealing the necessary techniques/material for others to repeat his experiments.

iii) Prins experiments are the only way to verify his claims and thus support the revolutionary theory.


Lets not beat about the bush too much here shall we, it is becoming embarassing.

[Betruger]

On one hand you have people like Woodward and March who're only missing concrete evidence to make a huge splash, and on the other you have people like Prins who (apparently, correct if I'm wrong) have concrete evidence but refuse to take an easy (if sideways) entrance to that same unavoidable big splash. Kinda crazy.

Excuse my ignorance: Who are Woodward and March?
I am not refusing to "take an easy entrance". I have already published in 2003 how a superconducting phase forms from electrons being extracted from a diamond by an anode. The proof that the electric field MUST be zero is the best proof EVER presented for ANY superconductor;[...] If they cannot even understand this simple fact, they should not be doing physics at all.

No Doc. The easy Trojan entrance I'm talking about is to supply your "special formula" to some manufacturer without insisting or even mentioning that it's a revolutionary room temperature superconductor. Find some way to get the formula into practical use, incognito (enough).

Soon enough there'll be questions, but the aim would be to get practical demonstration, IOW indisputable confirmation of all the theory you're censored on, before those questions.

Woodward and March are main actors in Mach Effect research.
I'd link tothis pagewhich has AFAIK the best list of resources on the net, but it seems to be down at the moment.
This website has quick & dirty articles on the subject.. In reverse chronological order as per the link.
This thread has lots of discussion, on theory/results/etc. Look for posts by "Star-Drive", Paul March's alias there. P. March also posts here and has much less posts to search thru if you want to find his posts that way.

... oops.. I hadnt seen the above developments. Well good luck anyway.

[DeltaV]

Johan,

1) A brief detour from the current topic: Are you familiar with the work of Mendel Sachs? http://www.compukol.com/mendel/

Amazing that I have missed this: But this has probably again happened as a result of the closed-minded censorship of the cranks in charge of our modern physics church. I could only quickly scan what this guy has written and it seems to dovetail with what I have written in my forthcoming book.
...

Yes, Sachs is being (mostly) ignored by the physics church. He jumped through all of their hoops with respect to degrees, tenure, peer review, etc., but they still tend to be silent about his work. His theory does not refute Einstein's General Relativity, but extends (completes) it with extra, rotational degrees of freedom. Quantum Mechanics falls out as a linear approximation. All four known forces, gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear are addressed by his theory, at scales from femtometers to cosmological.

2) Back to the current topic. Referring to the incomplete Newton's cradle analogy... is it possible to come up with a brief, visual, layman's explanation using only analogies with classical, macroscopic concepts (ball bearings, flexible membranes or whatever)? That is, start with kindergarten and work your way towards college, instead of vice versa. People can then jump off the pedagogical wagon when they feel they've reached their limit, yet still retain some concept of what your theory is about. I'd say at least 4-5 levels, the first one understandable by janitors, Congress critters*, news reporters, etc. Assume no knowledge of quantum physics, phases, etc. until higher levels are reached. This is a popularization-hence-funding strategy used quite often in the public realm for all sorts of research.

To do it totally in terms of a classical analogy is difficult since the ability of a matter-wave to borrow energy for a time interval and then lose it again is completely a quantum-mechanical effect. It is like an Angel giving the matter-wave an amount of energy to use within a limited time interval and then taking this energy back.

Consider now the following analogy: A Chinese Checkers board, all the dents filled with marbles, and little Angels flying above the board which can give a marble energy to lift out of its dent and move to the position of the next marble. It then has to give this energy back. The little Angels can then give energy to the next marble so that it vacates its dent and allows the arriving marble to replace it. Every time the energy expended by the movement of the marble comes from the Angels and is given back to them. This is analogous to "vacuum energy" but DOES NOT in any manner relate to the "vacuum energy" which supposedly exists according to quantum field theory. The energy is in fact part of the energy of the matter wave which cannot manifest permanently, only sporadically, within our three-dimensional space.
...
I hope this is of help?

Yes, thanks.

Maybe something involving springs and hooks, combined with totally inelastic collisions (as the marbles return to their dents), can represent the sub time-quantum borrowing of energy.

The analogy of marbles in a Chinese checkers board reminds me of one sometimes used to illustrate the phenomenon of Stochastic Resonance, where a little bit of noise can actually make a signal more discernable. That analogy has marbles (the signal of interest) bouncing around in an egg carton being bumped vertically (the noise). With sufficient (but not too much) noise added, the signal becomes easier to discern.

[BenTC]

Why are we seeing the term "phase" here? It's not a phase, it'a a material and like all materials it exists in some specific phase. Without defining the phase, the point of using the term is lost on me.

Would I be correct in assuming you are referring to generic phases Solid/Liquid/Gas whereas I believe Johan is using the more specific materials science definition ...

Phase. A homogeneous portion of a system that has uniform physical and chemical characteristics.

As temperature reduces, solid materials change "phase." The most common example used is the phase diagram of Steel , where the physcial structure of the solid changes with temperature, for example between body-centred-cubic and face-centred-cubic.

Ben, I don't want to get lost in splitting hairs here. The term is either being used in an elliptical construction, or it is being used improperly. Perhaps it's common in the SC field to use the elliptical construction, but a phase is not a thing--it is a state of a thing, and so technically, without stating the thing or implying somewhere in the context, you cannot talk about a phase of a thing without the thing itself. As you said below, a phase is a portion of a system. If you don't say what the system is, you make no sense and we're talking about stipulating terms for a definition. This is no time to be vague or suffer poor English.

Its taken a while to digest that, but to review the original statement "A superconductor is a phase through which a current can flow while the applied electric-field is cancelled everywhere within the superconductor" ...as best I can tell either:
1. it should read something like "A superconductor is a material containing a phase through which a current can flow while the applied electric-field is cancelled everywhere within the phase. " or...
2. you were wanting the material to be better defined eg chemical structure, or...
3. you were wanting a more detailed descripton of the phase structure, or...
4. something else?

[johanfprins]

i) Prins is claiming irrefutable experimental evidence of a revolutionary new theory for superconductivity.

Correct: And the theory can be found in detail on my website under the extract Model: Superconduction. And in that abstract I apply it to published results which cannot be modelled by other theories on superconduction like BCS. If I can fit it to published evidence which everybody accepts to be correct, why should I even try and reveal my own experimental evidence; which everybody will immediately dispute? Really I just cannot follow your logic here.

ii) Prins is requesting financial exchanges before revealing the necessary techniques/material for others to repeat his experiments.

A lie: The experiment where I have extracted a superconducting phase by an anode from a diamond substrate has already been published in 2003. I have given prepared diamonds, from which such a phase can be extracted, to other persons to do this experiment and have been willing all along to give FREE assistance. The only IP I am holding back is to make wafers which can be used to manufacture superconducting electronic devices in. Why do you consider this as wrong? Would other scientists not do the same until they are protected by a patent: My, my I am treally a bastard am I not?

iii) Prins experiments are the only way to verify his claims and thus support the revolutionary theory.

Another blatant lie! There are many ways to verify my "revolutionary" theory on known superconductors: And I have pointed out above that I have shown from published experimental data how this theory fits data which cannot be explained by any other model: And in my book will be a full analysis of how my theory models ALL aspects of superconduction like "Josephson tunnelling", the Meissner effect, Perpetual currents, etc. etc. etc.

Lets not beat about the bush too much here shall we, it is becoming embarassing.

You are the one who is beating around the bush: And yes it is becoming embarrassing. But please, if you want to beat round the bush, don't mix your beating with blatant lies.

[johanfprins]

No Doc. The easy Trojan entrance I'm talking about is to supply your "special formula"

It does not involve a "special formula". All the formulas on superconduction have been published on my website since 2005 in full. These formulas predict that for all "normal" superconductors discovered to date the critical temperature will barely top 250K. What I have is a serendipitous discovery that higher temperatures are possible if you modify a material in a certain manner.

to some manufacturer without insisting or even mentioning that it's a revolutionary room temperature superconductor. Find some way to get the formula into practical use, incognito (enough).

I have offered on my website to supply superconducting substrates to any electronics firm with the required infrastructure to test them for themselves. Is this not sufficient?

Soon enough there'll be questions, but the aim would be to get practical demonstration, IOW indisputable confirmation of all the theory you're censored on, before those questions.

To repeat, I have NOT censored any theory at any time. What I claim is that I have discovered serendipitously that it is actuall possible to manufacture wafers that can superconduct at room temperature: There was NO THEORY involved in this discovery. In fact, I was of the opinion that superconduction at room temperature CAN ONLY be achieved by extracting electrons from an n-type diamond by an anode since this superconducting phase transmits charge in a different manner than what is happening within a material. It was thus a total shock when I discovered that it is possible to generate a superconducting wafer. Why should I give the preparation technique away when it is sufficient to supply such substrates to any interested manufacturer?

Thanks for the info on Woodward and March. I will look into it as soon as I have time.

[johanfprins]

Yes, Sachs is being (mostly) ignored by the physics church. He jumped through all of their hoops with respect to degrees, tenure, peer review, etc., but they still tend to be silent about his work. His theory does not refute Einstein's General Relativity, but extends (completes) it with extra, rotational degrees of freedom. Quantum Mechanics falls out as a linear approximation. All four known forces, gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear are addressed by his theory, at scales from femtometers to cosmological.

Another example of what I am pointing out in my forthcoming book. I alo know of a theoretical physicst in England who tried to publish arguments that "renormalistion" is not tenable. Last I heard, he was working in a post office. As I have said, the evidence is that the cranks are not outside the physics church, but are running it. And Galileo thought HE had problems!

Yes, thanks.

Maybe something involving springs and hooks, combined with totally inelastic collisions (as the marbles return to their dents), can represent the sub time-quantum borrowing of energy.

I do not think this is possible since the ability to borrow energy over the time dimension comes from the fact that a matter wave has a complex wave-amplitude. This makes Schroedinger's equation already compatible with Einstein's special relativity (and even general relativity) which requires more than just three spatial dimensions. Springs, hooks and totally elastic collisons cannot explain how kinetic energy can disappear from our three-dimensional space without leaving a trace of entropy. It is for this reason that the mere absence of scattering of charge-carriers cannot explain superconduction.

The analogy of marbles in a Chinese checkers board reminds me of one sometimes used to illustrate the phenomenon of Stochastic Resonance, where a little bit of noise can actually make a signal more discernable. That analogy has marbles (the signal of interest) bouncing around in an egg carton being bumped vertically (the noise). With sufficient (but not too much) noise added, the signal becomes easier to discern.

Yes it is similar, but again in this case the kinetic energy remains within three-dimensional space. It is not borrowed and returned all the time as is required for superconduction to be compatible with the second law of thermodynamics.

By the end of this month I will hopefully have time to contact Mendel Sachs. He seems to be a super physicist.

[johanfprins]

Its taken a while to digest that, but to review the original statement "A superconductor is a phase through which a current can flow while the applied electric-field is cancelled everywhere within the superconductor" ...as best I can tell either:
1. it should read something like "A superconductor is a material containing a phase through which a current can flow while the applied electric-field is cancelled everywhere within the phase. " or..

.
In retrospect, even I was still sloppy to use the term "through" the phase. The superconducting phase within a material in reality acts as a catalyst, since it AIDS the injected charges to flow through the material. The injected charges can NEVER increase the charge of the superconducting phase itself; since if they do, they will increase the energy of the phase, which would mean that it is not a ground-state macro quantum state anymore. The charge-carriers flow without dissipating energy precisely because the superconducting phase remains on average (as controlled by quantum mechanics) in its ground-state. If it cannot maintain its ground-state it will break up and there will be no superconduction possible.

[BenTC]

Dr. Prinz should NOT be making up his own definition for superconductivity and certainly he does not need to do this "first" in order to supply Dave with what he asked for. If he honestly cannot give Dave what he asked for in 3 paragraphs, without correcting people's definitions for what superconductivity entails, then I don't see a way in hell to get anyone who's time is worthy, to take a gander.

Johan! What did Dave ask for?!

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.

I understood Dave's request to be a bit more comprehensive than you outline below. A quick survey of standard definitions of superconductivity all seem to based on "zero resistance." Johan takes exception to this as being a circular reference, and it unpins his premise. P=VI=0 seems an uncontrovertial alternative. Lets wait and see what three paragraphs Johan comes up with. No rush.

"I have diamond superconducting substrates that operate at room temperature and above in both the lateral and thickness dimensions. I have made these substrates and tested them with ______. Better tests can be had by constructing them to much larger sizes. Their construction does not require very advanced equipment that cannot be had at many thousands of labs around the world. All that's needed to have higher fidelity tests of my substrates are relatively modest finances to support use of better equipment than I have."

No definitions needed.

[BenTC]

And the theory can be found in detail on my website under the extract Model: Superconduction. And in that abstract I apply it to published results which cannot be modelled by other theories on superconduction like BCS.

Do you mean these?
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/model.pdf
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/data.pdf