Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

If you think you can write a resume for this kind of work, send it to me privately and I'll forward it to the proper people. Connecting with them might be a way for you to be heard on your work with RTSC's.

Thanks! A good idea. The problem is that when it comes to general relativity at present, my mind is still not clear enough to write a resume of what I really intend to do; or what anybody else can help me to achieve.

The insight from which I will work, which connects general relativity and QM, is the conclusion (see extract Modern Physics is Rotting) that the intensity of a matter wave is its mass-energy and that the so-called tunnelling tails are the curvature of space-time around the mass. This immeditaely unifies charge and electric-field energy with mass and gravity. And it indicates that Schroedinger's equation is derivable from Maxwell's equations: Its "spin" has nothing to do with a charge spinning since, according to Maxwell's equations, a single charge moving around an axis cannot generate a magnetic field.

This is alo so for a Bohr atom. The "circling electron" around the proton cannot generate a magnetic field as if it is generating a current around the proton. The magnetic moment of an electron is thus caused by the magnetic component of a light wave. An electron is a standing light wave which has therefore inertia so that it is stationary within its own inertial reference frame. So this summarises the line of attack when I have time in the future to get my battered brain restored after all the unplasant experiences over the past ten years.

Thanks for your positive interest, I appreciate it very much.

[Giorgio]

My suggestion, and the suggestion of most of the people here, is to put your efforts in completing the small mathematical introduction to your theory

Please tell me what still needs completion?

We do have a very nice short description of the theory now, I think it will be a real good idea to have the same also for the mathematical side.
I mean, a short mathematical introduction to your theories, to summarize it and catch the interest of the reader to get into the details on how you reach your equations.

[DeltaV]

As TallDave suggested, some links to graphs showing your theory predictions overplotted with public-domain data for some known superconductors.

[DeltaV]

Side note - interesting (for non-specialists) video about synthetic diamond:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/artif ... monds.html

[johanfprins]

As TallDave suggested, some links to graphs showing your theory predictions overplotted with public-domain data for some known superconductors.

It is on my website as extract 23 from my upcoming book. All the superconductors discovered to date (except my latest superconducting wafers) are modelled and graphs are shown how well my model fits data which BCS cannot. Go to www.cathodixx.com: click on "The Physics Delusion". Then click on pdf file "23 The Mechanism Superconduction". Is there anything else which you would like me to do? Let me know but remember I am an oldie who still struggles to adapt the the digital world which my grandchildren seem to already understand immediately after having been born.

[johanfprins]

Side note - interesting (for non-specialists) video about synthetic diamond:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/artif ... monds.html

Yes, it is my personal friend Jim Butler who has not moved a finger during the past 10 years to help me in any way: Not even by getting his scientists to try and prove me wrong. By the way, I do not know why Jim uses the term "artificial diamonds". The term "artificial" means that it looks like a diamond but consists primarily of other atoms than carbon atoms. The diamonds Jim produces consist of carbon atoms: They are thus real diamonds. In essence, except for defects, the only difference between them and the diamonds which you buy from De Beers, is that the latter were not manufactured by man in a laboratory; but were collected through mining.

[Betruger]

Doc It's a less than minor worry, but the above link to your website has a : stuck at the end of it.

:[/b]]www.cathodixx.com:
should be

Code: Select all

[url=www.cathodixx.com]www.cathodixx.com[/url]

[johanfprins]

Doc It's a less than minor worry, but the above link to your website has a : stuck at the end of it.

:[/b]]www.cathodixx.com:
should be

Code: Select all

[url=www.cathodixx.com]www.cathodixx.com[/url]

Thanks; I should have noticed: so it is just www.cathodixx.com Then click "The Physics Delusion" and then the pdf file "23 The Mechanism Superconduction.

Thanks again

[WizWom]

Side note - interesting (for non-specialists) video about synthetic diamond:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/artif ... monds.html

Yes, it is my personal friend Jim Butler who has not moved a finger during the past 10 years to help me in any way: Not even by getting his scientists to try and prove me wrong. By the way, I do not know why Jim uses the term "artificial diamonds". The term "artificial" means that it looks like a diamond but consists primarily of other atoms than carbon atoms. The diamonds Jim produces consist of carbon atoms: They are thus real diamonds. In essence, except for defects, the only difference between them and the diamonds which you buy from De Beers, is that the latter were not manufactured by man in a laboratory; but were collected through mining.

A Gem that is made is "artificial"; one that is made to look like another is "simulated". It's the way the words are used.

The "artificial" came about as a legalism, because it turned out to be so easy to make ruby ans sapphire in the lab.

[WizWom]

Doc It's a less than minor worry, but the above link to your website has a : stuck at the end of it.

:[/b]]www.cathodixx.com:
should be

Code: Select all

[url=www.cathodixx.com]www.cathodixx.com[/url]

Thanks; I should have noticed: so it is just www.cathodixx.com Then click "The Physics Delusion" and then the pdf file "23 The Mechanism Superconduction.

While I understand why you would use R for the lattice distance, in serves to confuse, since R is resistance, and someone glancing through might interpret it so. Unfortunately, 'r' is used for lattice distances, too. 'd', however, has no electrical use, and so might be a better choice.

Also, unless you can prove a net energy gain, then the invoking of dark energy (sec 23.3) is superfluous, and extravagant. If you are trying to correct people for making wrong claims, it helps to make as few claims as possible.

[johanfprins]

A Gem that is made is "artificial"; one that is made to look like another is "simulated". It's the way the words are used.

The "artificial" came about as a legalism, because it turned out to be so easy to make ruby ans sapphire in the lab.

Interesting angle. I have been instructed that a material like cubic zirconia is an artificial diamond and a man-made diamond is a synthetic diamond. Could it be that both of us are correct: That your use has become entrenched for sapphire and rubies, while mine for diamonds?

[johanfprins]

While I understand why you would use R for the lattice distance, in serves to confuse, since R is resistance, and someone glancing through might interpret it so. Unfortunately, 'r' is used for lattice distances, too. 'd', however, has no electrical use, and so might be a better choice.

Firstly, it is not really a lattice distance in the sense of a crystal lattice. It is the distance between adjacent charge-carriers along the direction a charge-carrier is jumping.

I am using "d' as the gap-distance when forming a superconductor by extracting electrons from a diamond with an anode, I had to find another notation for the distance between adjacent charge-carriers. Therefore I decided on "R". It should not really lead to confusion since most people define superconduction circularly as a material with no electrical resistance: i.e. no confusing R.

Also, unless you can prove a net energy gain, then the invoking of dark energy (sec 23.3) is superfluous, and extravagant.

I do not understand your reasoning here? Why must I prove an "energy gain"? All I am pointing out is that the energy causing superconduction is not permanently present within our three dimensional space; and also do not remain here after a charge-carrier has used it to move on. I then pointed out that it has been deduced that there is dark energy which we have not yet observed.

If you are trying to correct people for making wrong claims, it helps to make as few claims as possible.

I did not claim anything extravagant as you are accusing: Why so belligerent? You have been confrontational from the start and when I respond, I am suddenly the guy without social skills!

[DeltaV]

As TallDave suggested, some links to graphs showing your theory predictions overplotted with public-domain data for some known superconductors.

It is on my website as extract 23 from my upcoming book. All the superconductors discovered to date (except my latest superconducting wafers) are modelled and graphs are shown how well my model fits data which BCS cannot. Go to www.cathodixx.com: click on "The Physics Delusion". Then click on pdf file "23 The Mechanism Superconduction". Is there anything else which you would like me to do? Let me know but remember I am an oldie who still struggles to adapt the the digital world which my grandchildren seem to already understand immediately after having been born.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and the average web surfer will probably spend less than 10 seconds deciding whether to dig deeper or move on.

I'd suggest putting copies of the graphs for lead, YCBO and boron-doped diamond directly on the Home page. Remove the "Draft Copy" background, add the descriptive text as captions, "Copyright 2010 Johan F. Prins" in a corner of each graph, list the data sources and add a header for the new section (something like "New Theoretical Description of Existing Superconductors").

The more graphs you show for known superconductors, the greater the impact will be.

[Enginerd]

Interesting angle. I have been instructed that a material like cubic zirconia is an artificial diamond and a man-made diamond is a synthetic diamond. Could it be that both of us are correct: That your use has become entrenched for sapphire and rubies, while mine for diamonds?

Perhaps the terms "man-made" or "manufactured" diamond would be least ambiguous.

[KitemanSA]

A Gem that is made is "artificial"; one that is made to look like another is "simulated". It's the way the words are used.

The "artificial" came about as a legalism, because it turned out to be so easy to make ruby ans sapphire in the lab.

Interesting angle. I have been instructed that a material like cubic zirconia is an artificial diamond and a man-made diamond is a synthetic diamond. Could it be that both of us are correct: That your use has become entrenched for sapphire and rubies, while mine for diamonds?

Interesting. To me, cubic zirconia is fake, faux, or pseaudo diamond. Simulated is also accurate. Mined diamonds are real, natural diamonds. Those made by places like Gemesis are real, artificial diamonds.