WizWom wrote:Yes, but could somebody duplicate your experiment and achieve the same result, within a margin of error?
I cannot force anybody to repeat the experiment: However, I know that our electricity utility company ESKOM hired our "expert" on superconduction here in South Africa, Prof. Terry Doyle, to repeat the experiment . It is a fact that he could reproduce all my results and even more. He also took photographs of the phase. When he applied a voltage on the anode and reached the critical value at which the extracted electrons reach the anode, he could photograph at first sparks flying around, and then SUDDENLY a dark rod of micron size appeared connecting the diamond surface with the anode. An equilibrium current then flowed with no more sparks flying around.
I do not know the rest of the story except that Prof. Doyle could not eliminate contamination in his system. In our system we could eliminate contamination by first touching the anode to the diamond and only then applying the voltage and opening up the gap very slowly. This requires a spring loaded anode so as not to squash the anode onto thje diamond. Prof. Doyle's apparatus does not have this feature: He thus wants to claim that the contact is caused by some sort of contamination which forms REPRODUCIBLY every time. One should note that if he accepts that it is superconduction, most of his publications over the past 40 years which relied on the BCS model being correct, will suddenly become null and void.
WizWom wrote:That, not the physics explanation you use, should be the determining factor in whether your work is sound or not. If the effect is duplicable, and unexplainable with current theory, then the theory must be revised.
It is thus duplicable: What is now required is to agree on a what is happening: There are ONLY two possibilities:
(i) Contamination: I can assure you that we did very careful measurements to see whether this is possible, and found that the amount of residual contamination after each experiment could not explain the result. As already mentioned when first touching the anode to the diamond in order to eliminate the sparks that Doyle has photographed, we got no contamination at all.
(ii) The explanation that fits like a glove follows from the impeccable interface physics that is used every day to design transistors. Since the diamond has NEA one starts of with a dipole layer over the surface of the diamond: Electrons are ejected to leave a positive depletion layer behind. This dipole is required to cancel the electric field at the surface which would have been there owing to the offset between thee conduction band and the vacuum level.
When now applying a voltage with the anode, this dipole layer increases in size to also cancel this extra applied field: i.e. the width of the depletion layer increases and the number of electrons outside the surface also increases. Equilibrium is reached when the dipole again cancels the field (including the applied field). When extracting the dipole so that the external electrons just reach the anode, one will still have that the field within the dipole is cancelled when equilibrium has been extablished.
When now increasing the applied voltage just a bit more: Electrons start to cascade into the anode, and since the Fermi-level in the anode is below the vacuum level, an electric field now again appears within the dipole. If the depletion layer does not become too wide, equilibrium will be reached when the electron density between the diamond and anode reaches a high enough value to do exactly this: i.e. cancel the applied electric field. Before reaching equilibrium one finds that the current jumps around erratically: Sparks can be seen owing to electrons striking the anode.
But as soon as equilibrium is reached this behaviour stops: An equilibrium current flows and Prof, Doyle sees a black rod appearing as from nowhere. The point to make is that for a thin enough depletion layer the electric-field btween the diamond surface and the anode MUST be exactly ZERO. If not, no solid state transistor should EVER have functioned. The further point to make is that although there is no field in the electron phase, an equilibrium current STILL flows around the circuit.
It should be noted that there has NEVER existed any proof that an electric field within a superconductor is exactly cancelled, while in my experiment the proof is incontrovertible.
WizWom wrote:But announcing the theoretical explanation contrary to current theory at the same time as an unverified experimental result will just get you in trouble.
Firstly the result has been verified by Terry Doyle. I know it is not in the public domain; but that is out of my hands since the results belong to ESKOM. Secondly I have handed out modified diamonds to laboratories to repeat my experiment. So far they were far too busy with their own interests to spend the money: Neither can I keep it up to give diamonds away for free.
But the most important fact is that I should have been able to predict the result WITHOUT ANY EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION, since the impeccable solid state physics on which electronic devices are based demand that it must be so.
It is ironic that the only experiment in history which proves without doubt that there can be no electric field within a phase while a current is flowing, and which can give a reason why the electric field is cancelled, has been rejected by the physics church on superconduction for 10 years already.