Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

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

When I wrote these articles five years ago I was still fuzzy in my thinking. They are not wrong but can be confusing since I still thought at that time that pair formation is required.

Rather go to www.cathodixx.com. Click on "books"; then "Th Physics Delusion" and then on extract 23: The Mecahism Superconduction. There are also other extracts: For example how electrons are extracted from diamond and why the electric field within this phase of electrons becomes zero while a current is still flowing.

[johanfprins]

It might be good if we had a short, three-paragraph summary of your ideas, Johann, something sympathetic heads might spread around to places where people might find it interesting enough to follow a link and learn more. Maybe one graf on the idea, one on how it contradicts the conventional view, and one on the room-temp superconduction you found?

I think you said somewhere about 700 words. Here is my effort in 640 words. I would like to thank GIThruster for the last few sentences:

In 1911 Onnes measured the voltage V between two contacts to mercury while a current I is flowing through mercury. While cooling, the mercury to very low temperatures the voltage dropped to a very low values. Onnes concluded that it became exactly zero and published this result claiming what has become known as superconduction which he presented as being zero resistivity. In terms of the actual parameters he measured, it means that during superconduction there is no heat being dissipated since the power P=IV is zero. Onnes’ assumption that V=0, leads to the incontrovertible conclusion there is no electric-field present which accelerates the charge-carriers that constitutes the current.

This leads to three fundamental paradoxes which have to be explained:
(i) What happens to the applied electric field which is present within the mercury above the critical temperature?
(ii) Where do the charge-carriers obtain their kinetic energies from?
(iii) And why does this energy not dissipate in any manner within or outside of the mercury.

These paradoxes cannot be explained simply by an absence of scattering by the charge-carriers within the mercury; since an absence of scattering does not prevent a free charge-carrier from being accelerated. In fact no conductor with free charge-carriers can cancel an applied electric-field while a current is flowing through it. Paradox (i) leads to the compelling conclusion that when superconduction sets in, a phase must be forming which is not metallic in character. It must be a “conducting insulator” which forms a polarisation field in opposition to the applied field.

It is generally accepted, and I believe this is absolutely correct, that a superconducting phase forms (within a material like mercury) as a macro quantum-mechanical ground-state, and therefore it cannot dissipate energy. Thus any mechanism which requires this ground-state to increase its energy must destroy the ground-state and thus the phase. Injecting electrons from outside into such a macro-state SHOULD increase its energy unless it can prevent these injected charges from doing so.

A quantum-mechanical wave can, however, increase its energy for a limited time by means of Heisenberg’s relationship for energy and time. This energy appears as if from nowhere and then (after the allowed time) disappears again as if it has not been there. It is thus possible for the superconducting ground-state to pass-on the extra injected charge-carriers by borrowing the energy required for them to move, while this energy again disappears without a trace: i.e. without being dissipated as entropy. This explains paradoxes (i) and (ii) above.

By developing a theory for superconduction in terms of Heisenberg’s relationship for energy and time, I derived a model which is predictive. When applying this model to the superconductors discovered to date, their critical temperatures can be derived in terms of their measured crystallographic and electronic properties. But when extrapolating this model, it was found that it is highly unlikely that one will ever reach a critical temperature above about 250 K. It should be noted that this is exactly at the ceiling that has been experienced for nearly 20 years now.

It was totally by serendipity that I later found that there is an added physics-factor which, although not in any manner negating the model based on Heisenberg’s relationship for normal superconductors, can be generated within suitable materials (not the known ceramics or the metals) so that they can superconduct at room temperature. Diamond turned out to be such a material. At present I can generate very thin small-area substrates which superconduct at and above room temperature. Better tests can be had by constructing them to much larger areas and thicknesses. Their construction does not require very advanced equipment that cannot be had at many thousands of laboratories around the world. All that is needed to have higher fidelity tests of my substrates, are relatively modest finances to support the use of better equipment than I have.

[WizWom]

Much, much better, Dr. Prins. Now, instead of saying "everything you know is wrong" you are starting with the understanding, the existing actual effects and the issues the current paradigm has. Then, you extend with a theory with falsifiability, and and hint of an experiment to test your theory.

[GIThruster]

I'm going to wander off from this thread as it doesn't appear to me to be going anywhere. Just a few parting shots.

My apologies to Johan for repeatedly mistaking the spelling of his name. Someone wrote me privately that it is "Prins, rather than "Prinz".

Obviously, Dr. Prins' offensive language is not confined to me. Even amidst the nonsense, he is correcting others by claiming what they post is "a lie" and "another lie!" This kind of walking social blunder is easy to find as fault, for why Johan can't get his act together with regards investment. He doesn't have the necessary relational skills to get along with people, as is further demonstrated by his detached judgements about science. Dr. Prins therefore needs an ambassador to find him investment, someone to go between him and an investor--and I'm not good working with angry children.

Second observation: Johan is constantly wanting to make converts by teaching his theory here in the thread. As I have explained to him several times, both in public and in private, this is unnecessary. If he's serious about getting funding for his work, which is truly the best way to get a better hearing for his theory; he needs to set aside trying to make disciples, and focus entirely on developing his technology. He needs very modest funding to build much larger substrates that can be sent around and tested as to their suitability for SC IC substrates. Until he can get this done, the rest is wasted time. The book is wasted time. Prostleletizing here is wasted time. If you look at what's with BLP these last 20+ years, you'll see that all the arguing about theory in the world has changed nothing, and has in truth, worked against what BLP is trying to accomplish. It is ONLY the physical evidence that matters in disputes like this.

What this means, IMHO; is that any and all effort arguing about theory, telling people they're "WRONG!", pedantic nonsense telling people they're "starting to get it", casting harsh accusations that every time someone innocently mischaracterizes the situation in Johan's eyes they are lying, and even the more innocent seeming situation where Johan is trying to teach his physics--are all wasted effort. All wasted! It's not as if there were anyone in this forum who claimed to have a working graduate understanding of SC. None of us are going to go to bat with the status quo to defend Johan's theory. So all his effort ought to be focused on providing evidence. Calling supporters liars is not just wasted effort, it's self destructive.

IMHO, Johan may have something, but it truly stinks like something fishy that on three occasions in the last decade, Johan has found someone willing to examine the evidence, and yet, we have no word back from any of these folks. In particular, the PhD physicist hired by the electrical company to replicate Johan's work, who never wrote a report--this is not a credible story. The people who paid that physicist would have demanded a report. The story from Johan about this is not credible. Something is fishy. . .

Not coming back to this thread. Best of luck, folks.

[Giorgio]

@ johanfprins

Neat and clean. It points out your idea in a very effective way. What we need now is tha same with your model, with calculations of the expected Superconduction temperature for a couple of the existing superconductors and of the diamond substrate you propose.

Than I think we will have all the tools we need to start to duly evaluate and propagate this idea.



@ GIThruster

The discussion is going pretty well now. We have a clear introduction to his idea, and we are working to get the same type of polishing to his model.
While I understand your points, I also understand the stress that Dr. Prins had probably to endure in the past years, and stress tends to make one's character sour. We should not discuss about Dr. Prins character here but about his ideas and logic, trying to identify and express the points that do not convince us. I must admit that until now I have not been able to identify a serious flaw in his logic.

This of course does not means that he is right, but also does not mean that he is wrong just because his idea goes against the existing model (which, IMHO is full of problems).

His hypothesis solves almost all of the problems that Quantum Mechanics has shown to date, and if his mathematical model will be of the same level of his logic I think this issue should be brought to the attention of as many researcher as possible until someone hopefully will repeat his measurements and finally prove or disprove his ideas.

Meantime I suggest we all throw the nervousness on our backs and discuss only about his ideas and especially what we think are the flaws in his model.

[johanfprins]

Much, much better, Dr. Prins. Now, instead of saying "everything you know is wrong" you are starting with the understanding, the existing actual effects and the issues the current paradigm has. Then, you extend with a theory with falsifiability, and and hint of an experiment to test your theory.

Thanks WizWom: I wish you well! It is not neccessary to "hint" at an experiment since there are enough published experimental data which the mainstream theory cannot explain; while mine can. Furthermore, my theory explains ALL the other superconducting effects better than the mainstream theory. For example Josephson tunnelling, although predicted by Josephson, has been incorrectly modelled all along! I know that such a statement might send a person like GIThruster into apoplexy, but if it is the case and I have calculations to prove it, why am I uncouth and shooting myself in the foot when I mention it?

[Betruger]

It does not involve a "special formula". [...] What I have is a serendipitous discovery that higher temperatures are possible if you modify a material in a certain manner.

That's the special formula I mean.

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?

You stopped bothering with peer review when it came to a near-impasse. Why stop so much shorter with the manufacturer path? Like someone said, only guarantee some marginal but compelling performance advantage over competing "suppliers" (as you'd effectively be, whatever the word is, my English is failing), and let them wise up whenever they do. Once your product is proven in practice.... What more could you ask for? No one could doubt your conjecture, or at least deny it as non-substantial.

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 [...] Why should I give the preparation technique away when it is sufficient to supply such substrates to any interested manufacturer?

That's what I'm suggesting.

[johanfprins]

@ johanfprins
Neat and clean. It points out your idea in a very effective way. What we need now is the same with your model, with calculations of the expected Superconduction temperature for a couple of the existing superconductors and of the diamond substrate you propose.

The calculation for the Tc of YBCO is in my patent as an example why the present superconductors cannot go to higher temperatures. I have not done all the ceramics because it is obvious that they will not. The patent examiner for my PCT application has rejected my application by arguing incorrectly that I am trying to patent a "theory". His arguments are of course totally nonsensical since I only used my theory to prove that the existing known materials will not be able to reach room temperature.

Next month I will discuss this with my patent attorneys who are just as upset about the moronic arguments of the patent examiner. It is clear that he or she does not understand physics and neither the law. But I suppose we must be kind: How can an ignorant patent examiner follow the arguments if the "experts" on superconduction refuse to think logically? I am thus not willing to reproduce my calculations on maximum Tc's here yet.

Nonetheless, on my website I fit theory to experimental data for YBCO and other superconductors which cannot be modelled by the mainstream dogma. This should be enough to prove that I have a better model; is it not?

Furthermore, as I have pointed out, my existing diamond substrates are not covered by the same theory. That it is so since I cannot predict by the same model that superconducting at room temperature is possible. That it is possible I discovered by experiment as a novel aspect which has not been covered by any theory, including the one I have developed for the low temperature metals and the ceramics.

Meantime I suggest we all throw the nervousness on our backs and discuss only about his ideas and especially what we think are the flaws in his model.

Thanks for this: Physics is not about character evaluation but about experimental facts and logic. And if I have a model which can explain everything the mainstream model claims it can explain as well as those experimental data it cannot, then surely I would have expected that scientists should sit upright and not throw insults at me, no matter how ugly, obnoxious etc. I am.

[GIThruster]

I would have expected that scientists should sit upright and not throw insults at me, no matter how ugly, obnoxious etc. I am.

Well see that's where you're wrong. If you act obnoxious, you deserve the insults. Scientists are no different than anyone else in this regard. And lets face facts, if every time I thought someone was wrong, I called them a liar, people would want to slap me silly too.

Earning the "right to be heard" requires more than being correct. It requires at least a small measure of emotional maturity as well.

[Betruger]

Sounds like politics. The right to be heard is said in such a manner of speech because it's a less straightforward notion than E.G. "credibility". There's no shortage in history of noteworthy people (if not icons, for whatever reason- science, personality, etc) who were also infamously outspoken, rude, extravagant, etc. Often enough it is perspicaciousness that enables them to break thru.

Regardless what someone's quirks are, if he reliably hits the spot, he has credibility. Science isn't democratic.. It's not a popularity contest.

[johanfprins]

I'm going to wander off from this thread

I am not shedding any tears; since I am tired of your misrepresentations and lies like saying this thread appears to be "going nowhere".

My apologies to Johan for repeatedly mistaking the spelling of his name. Someone wrote me privately that it is "Prins, rather than "Prinz".

No problem! I know more people than you who cannot read or spell correctly.

Obviously, Dr. Prins' offensive language is not confined to me. Even amidst the nonsense, he is correcting others by claiming what they post is "a lie" and "another lie!"

If my claims of lying are wrong it will be easy to dispute by giving the correct facts is it not? I will then apologise.

This kind of walking social blunder is easy to find as fault, for why Johan can't get his act together with regards investment. He doesn't have the necessary relational skills to get along with people, as is further demonstrated by his detached judgements about science.

Again your false and dishonest misrepresentation: In fact I am not even directly in contact with possible investors at all. I have friends with impeccable social skills who are working on it. Can you see why I have to call people like you liars?

Dr. Prins therefore needs an ambassador to find him investment, someone to go between him and an investor--and I'm not good working with angry children.

Thank God you are not the ambassador. An uncouth person like you who flies into a petulant tirade just because I do not want to accept YOUR definition of superconduction, should be locked in a Loony Bin.

Second observation: Johan is constantly wanting to make converts by teaching his theory here in the thread. As I have explained to him several times, both in public and in private, this is unnecessary.

Why is it wrong to propagate correct physics? This is part of my life, and duty, as a teacher and a professor.

If he's serious about getting funding for his work, which is truly the best way to get a better hearing for his theory; he needs to set aside trying to make disciples, and focus entirely on developing his technology.

How the hell can you obtain funding without convincing people you are on the right track: i.e. without making disciples? Really your logic STINKS sky high!

He needs very modest funding to build much larger substrates that can be sent around and tested as to their suitability for SC IC substrates. Until he can get this done, the rest is wasted time.

So by reading this thread you know everything about my business: Also how much funding I require etc. My, my you are a true Jesus Christ!

The book is wasted time.

Since when is a book on new ideas in physics a wasted time? Are you implying that physics professors are wasting their time and thus cheating the people who pay taxes? Again you are so illogical that I have to pity you.

If you look at what's with BLP these last 20+ years,

I wish you people would learn to write in words: What the hell is BLP?

It is ONLY the physical evidence that matters in disputes like this.

Exactly: But when I offer this nobody wants to test it since the superconductor "experts" they consult advise against it.

What this means, IMHO; (pleas enlighten me what IMHO means) is that any and all effort arguing about theory, telling people they're "WRONG!", pedantic nonsense telling people they're "starting to get it", casting harsh accusations that every time someone innocently mischaracterizes the situation in Johan's eyes they are lying, and even the more innocent seeming situation where Johan is trying to teach his physics--are all wasted effort. All wasted! It's not as if there were anyone in this forum who claimed to have a working graduate understanding of SC.

No but it is even worse when a person like you think by reading my comments on a thread that he knows ALL about my business and then misrepresents my intentions as you are doing. Can you not see that all you are writingf about me is more applicable to your childish behaviour?

None of us are going to go to bat with the status quo to defend Johan's theory.

Exactly what my father and brother told me in 1960-1970 when I told them that Apartheid in South ASfrica will not last.

So all his effort ought to be focused on providing evidence.

Which I have already done and am willing to supply to interested honest people.

Calling supporters liars is not just wasted effort, it's self destructive.

You call yourself a supporter when you misrepresent me in the decietful manner you have done on this thread? You really need to have you head!

IMHO, Johan may have something, but it truly stinks like something fishy that on three occasions in the last decade, Johan has found someone willing to examine the evidence, and yet, we have no word back from any of these folks.

You see how deceitful you are and how you can throw around suspicion by being completely dishonest. Why would I calim this if it is not a fact: I am not as deceitful as you are! This is why you are a liar and will die a liar.

In particular, the PhD physicist hired by the electrical company to replicate Johan's work, who never wrote a report--this is not a credible story. The people who paid that physicist would have demanded a report. The story from Johan about this is not credible. Something is fishy

Why do you not write to ESKOM yourself and obtain the facts. It is unbelievable that there is a living enitity who can stoop as low in speading deceitful suspicions as as you are willing to do.

Not coming back to this thread. Best of luck, folks.

Thanks now the REAL stink on this thread may clear up finally!

[johanfprins]

Well see that's where you're wrong. If you act obnoxious, you deserve the insults. Scientists are no different than anyone else in this regard. And lets face facts, if every time I thought someone was wrong, I called them a liar, people would want to slap me silly too.

You see how you lie? Where is the "everytime" I call a person a liar when I think he/she is wrong. You are really immature to make such a sweeping satement

Earning the "right to be heard" requires more than being correct. It requires at least a small measure of emotional maturity as well.

Then where is your emotional maturity. You just wrote that you are leaving this thread but your smell has returned: And then you do not know why I call you a liar? You lied by claiming you are leaving and then shamelessly you return. Really I pity you!

[TecnoImpacto]

Johanfprins, some of your ideas are very attractive.

I have read only this thread and some links that appears in it, so I have not an elaborate opinion, but I want to made a little contribution in a point in which appears you place a lot of importance. I understand you, it is an important point: the zero or not zero resistance included as definition of superconductivity.

I am not making science neither engineering, my interest is only an intellectual one, and I would try to explain as better as possible, because I am not a native English speaker.

First a brief summary about Ohm´s law.

It is very clear that Ohm's Law is only referred to a material. It has not sense to use it for the "vacuum": the empty space is not a material (there are some comments about this).

Both intensity and electrical potential (and so difference) are previously defined, but resistance is not previously defined. So resistance is clearly defined within the Ohm's Law:

- Resistance is the division between electrical potential difference applied to the material and the electrical intensity.
- Resistance is a real number because operands of the division are real numbers.
- Conceptually, It appears that the resistance is the magnitude that quantify the opposition a material offers to the flow of current.
- Conductivity and resistivity are related with the resistance (previously and macroscopically defined )
- Resistivity can conceptually be seen in a similar way as the resistance.
- Both conductivity and resistivity, also, are real numbers.

After that, the Microscopic Ohm Law can be theoretically related with the macroscopic Ohm's Law and with other concepts of electromagnetism and even quantum physics. Again it is supposed a "material", not empty space (see by example http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... hmmic.html).

I want to stop at the point in which we have the direct proportional relationship between current density and "applied electric field" which is supposed uniform in the material (constant current). At that point:

Resistivity, conductivity and resistance are real numbers. Remember, the real numbers are included in the complex numbers so there is no problem with the Complex Ohm's Law. I think it is not worth to enter on the complex ohm law.

Ending the brief not all materials are "ohmic materials" and also we must be very carefully with the difference between "electromotive force" and "electrical potential difference".

First thing I want to remark is that those three (resistance, resistivity and conductivity) magnitudes are defined and very clearly defined, I think. I disagree with those statement that they are not clearly defined. Well, you may think they should be redefined, or must be changed their definitions, or better to define another different magnitudes for a best interpretation of this phenomenon. But they are clearly defined, I believe it.

After said that I want to remark again that they are real numbers. Why I do remark it? Because as real numbers...

- what may occur if they are zero?
- could them be zero?
- in which conditions they could be zero?

There is not problem with the macroscopic Ohm's Law. If the electrical potential difference, applied to the material, is zero and the intensity is finite, the material must have zero resistance.

With the microscopic form of Ohm's Law, the case is more subtle. At first glance, if resistivity is zero then there is a division by zero.

But you have remarked that there is not electric field everywhere within your material. The microscopy Ohm's Law is valid in every section in the material. So, in such case you have a zero (=conservative electric field) divided by zero (=resistivity) or, if you prefer, an infinite (=conductivity) multiplied by zero (=conservative electric field), which is a much more different problem. As I see it, the problem is not the zero resistance; it is this indetermination and why it occurs. But again, the only possible explanation, within the Microscopic Ohm's Law, is: if the current density is finite and the (conservative) electric field is zero, the resistivity must be zero, so again the resistance must be zero.

From your measures, you must conclude your material has zero as value of resistance. So, I don't understand your radical opposition to use of zero resistance in the definition of superconductor. Couldn't you conciliate the zero resistance with your theory? It would be the best way to go, I think.

By example, you said: "So it is not zero resistivity that cancels the electric field but the cancellation of the electric field which we use to define zero resistivity".

I agree with you that "it is not resistivity that cancels the electric field", it is obvious. But about your asseveration "but [is] the cancellation of the electric field which we use to define zero resistivity": I am not only disagree with it, but also I think you don't need it.

The “cancellation of the electric field” doesn’t define the "zero resistivity": it is previously defined. You are not defining the "zero resistivity". The zero is valid value of the resistivity; furthermore (as I said) it must be zero with those values of voltage and current you got. What you have made is to measure current across your material and to measure voltage between two points, then you inferred that the (conservative) electrical field is zero and then calculated the resistivity and the value result you got was zero. You calculated the value of resistivity, and you got zero which is within the valid range of values of the microscopic and the macroscopic versions of the Ohm´s Law. As I said previously I think the problem is the indetermination and why it occurs, but the result is clearly a finite current (or a finite current density). The indetermination has been physically resolved into a finite current, so actually the only problem is why it occurs.

Again, if you got a zero voltage between every two points of your material and got a finite current, I don't understand your radical opposition to use the zero resistance in a definition of superconductor. Why?

Only another question, I think is only about redaction. You said "when I measure zero voltage over two points there is no net electric field between the two points".

I understand, I think, what you want to say but I disagree with how you said. The expression "no net electric field between the two points" has a lot of problems. I apologise if I have understood it in a wrong way or if I am no able to express with clarity what I want to mean: as you well know, the electric field is defined in every point, it is not defined "between two points", much less "net electric field between two points". I suppose what you want to mean is that everywhere within your material (in every point), the (net, or total) electric field is zero. If it is so, I agree with you that, if we assume that along your material the electric field is uniform, you only need to measure the voltage between two points of your material.

[Alchemist]

Reading this, is anyone else reminded of Hans Reiser and the whole ReiserFS/Reiser4 debacle? (i.e. A Great idea that came to naught because the person with the idea had no interpersonal skills?)

[GIThruster]

"Interpersonal Skills" are highly under-rated.

They're in fact what makes the world go round.