Room-temperature superconductivity?

[ladajo]

I also pushed no.

[DeltaV]

Someone also seems to be hacking his web page's hit counter.

It went from ~15000 back to zero recently.

The same thing happened a year or two ago, when it was at ~30000.

[krenshala]

Someone also seems to be hacking his web page's hit counter.

It went from ~15000 back to zero recently.

The same thing happened a year or two ago, when it was at ~30000.

He (or his web admin) could be doing it as well. Counters are usually just a text file on the website, and if someone is cleaning up pages it could get removed either intentionally or accidentally (I've accidentally deleted the counter file for a website aI maintained before; forgot what the file was because I hadn't had to mess with it in over a year). The counter script would then recreate it. This, of course, assumes the script is running on the same webserver as the rest of the site.

This may also be intentional to see how many hits its getting over a certain time period without having to remember what it was at when you started the check and do math.

[DeltaV]

Electrons are not enough: Cuprate superconductors defy convention

"This result is telling us that the physics cannot be described by electrons alone," Phillips said. "This means that the cuprates are even weirder than previously thought: Something other than electrons carries the current."

[DeltaV]

Fermi Surface of the Most Dilute Superconductor

PDF

The origin of superconductivity in bulk SrTiO3 (strontium titanate) is a mystery several decades old.
...
In this experimental paper, we find that SrTiO3 is in fact a superconductor with the lowest mobile-charge density currently known in all superconductors—in other words, the most dilute superconductor—and is also a new and interesting candidate for non-BCS-type unconventional superconductors.
...
The mobile electrons in the superconducting SrTiO3 are too slow and too far apart compared to those in conventional superconductors. This poses a serious challenge for the standard BCS pairing scenario, which relies on phonon-induced electron-electron attraction.

These results, which beg for a fundamental theoretical explanation, add new motivations and new information for solving the decade-old puzzle.

Johan, if your theory can solve some of these mysteries, then the physics world will have to show you some new respect.

[krenshala]

Johan's assertion that superconduction is due to the electrons forming a single standing wave (assuming I'm remembering what he posted correctly ) could definitely explain what this describes.

[DeltaV]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.6269v1.pdf
High Temperature Superconductivity: Ineluctable Complexity

The discovery of charge-density-wave order in the high-temperature superconductor YBa2Cu3O6+y places charge order centre stage with superconductivity, suggesting they they are intertwined rather than competing.

Waves? Where have we heard waves? <sarcasm>

[DeltaV]

Meanwhile, Joe Eck hits 38 C, 100 F.
http://www.superconductors.org/38C_rec.htm

[DeltaV]

Er, make that 53C, 127F.

[DeltaV]

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_a ... nductivity
Johan posts from September 2013.

[Teemu]

Waves? Where have we heard waves? <sarcasm>

Pretty much everywhere in pretty much everything related to electromagnetism and quantum mechanics

[Teemu]

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What_a ... nductivity
Johan posts from September 2013.

Applying accepted Solid State Physics of interfaces which is used every day for chip design, proves that the electric-field within this pahase must be zero:

Here Johan Prins confessed doing something that is as anti-reductionist as possible. He confesses that he is trying to derive his theory of superconductivity from non-fundamental solid state physics equations, which is absurd. Solid state physics is a science of useful, but non-fundamental, equations, if you want to design devices, you can't really start to calculate all the individual electron interactions because computing power runs out really fast, due to this, you need to make assumptions, simplifications. Basically these equations are like ideal (physical) gas law. Ideal gas law is good at giving useful results for certain calculations, but because of it being idealization, it totally breaks down when you get out of it's working regime, it really doesn't represent some fundamental wholesome truth of the physical world, it is just a nice tool. The ideal gas model tends to fail at lower temperatures or higher pressures and it also fails for most heavy gases, for example.

http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf

By applying the accepted standard equations that describe electron transport, it is shown unequivocally that the extracted electron density has to keep on increasing, while at the same time, the differences in the respective energies of these electrons must keep on decreasing until a Bose–Einstein-type condensate consisting entirely of electron pairs has to form

The fundamental trait of ideal electron gas/ideal metal/free electron gas assumption is that the calculations show the electron density to keep on increasing to infinity. That electron gas assumption is included in those accepted standard equations that describe electron transport. The electron density increasing to infinity it isn't actually physically happenig, but it is one of the mathematical limiations of ideal electron gas model. But Prins seems to imagine that this is actually happening, and that since the electron density keeps on increasing to infinity, the electrons have to form BEC to avoid Pauli exclusion.

[scalziand]

Cooper pairs rear their head again.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/201 ... conductors

Most subatomic particles have a tiny magnetic field – a property physicists call “spin” – and electrical resistance happens when the fields of electrons carrying current interact with those of surrounding atoms. Two electrons can join like two bar magnets, the north pole of one clamping to the south pole of the other, and this “Cooper pair” is magnetically neutral and can move without resistance. Lee and Davis propose that this “antiferromagnetic” interaction is the universal cause not only for superconductivity but also for all the observed intertwined ordering. They show how their “unified” theory can predict the phenomena observed in copper-based, iron-based and so-called “heavy fermion” materials.

But if the cause is always the same, why do different materials exhibit different oddities? The difference, they say, is in the varying energy levels of the electrons that are free to carry current, which can be described by a mathematical structure called the ”Fermi surface.”

The new high-temperature superconductors are derived from orderly crystals where the same arrangement of atoms is repeated over and over and the spins of electrons alternate up and down from one unit cell to another. Although this favors antiferromagnetic interaction, electrons are not free to form Cooper pairs. Doping with trace elements distorts the crystal structure and removes some electrons, changing the Fermi surface. Whether Cooper pairing or some other ordering will take place depends on the shape of the Fermi surface, the researchers said.

[DeltaV]

Johan has put a list of frequently asked questions and answers on his web site --

http://www.cathodixx.com/qa.asp

[DeltaV]

Etching precise structures into diamond...

Subtractive 3D Printing of Optically Active Diamond Structures
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1403/1403.4067.pdf