Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

with respect, i suggest therein lies a large part of your problem: you are told your books will not sell/papers will not stand, by people in that business, and you consider their reasons 'foolish'. for 7 years.

Yes I have the proof. Furthermore I have by hook and crook two manuscripts on ArXive for quite a few years already. And I have submitted papers to various journals which were rejected without any valid physics-arguments as to why I am wrong. The only arguments I got is that the BCS model has withstood the test of time and "therefore we do not need another model". Similar to "Ptolemy's model has withstood the test of time and therefore we do not have to consider even the possibilty that the earth is moving".

i begin to suspect you consider making a profit on your 'books' more important than contributing to science.

This is a malicious statement. I am NOT a Mark McCutcheon, who does not even understand how a siphon works. If after seven years I could not get anything published in so called "peer-reviewed" journals and my manuscripts on ArXive are ignored, I am supposed NOT to print books; or if I do I am supposed not to cover my costs! REALLY!!

you see, it doesn't come across too well. what is more important - your {sic} online book business, or your science?

What else must I do when my science is consistently blocked by the "physics-church" for frivolous and stupid reasons? By writing a book I am getting the truth out, but I cannot do this for free on my pension income. So what is wrong to ask money for a book on which I have worked myself to death for two years. The book sales can NEVER repay the money I could have earned by teaching at a University; which I could have rather done.
If you can prove any of the physics in my book wrong, I will refund you! But PLEASE do not be so narrowminded as the likes of Brian Josephson, Frank Wilczek, Gerahardus 'tHooft and similar clowns; who think that they understand physics.

surely it is your duty then, to steer them in the right direction, if as you claim yours is the right direction, it shouldnt be so hard to gain some support along the way, no?

This is exactly what I am trying to do by using the only avenue still open to me.

but no one is going to support you if they know nothing of your work, and they certainly wont be inclined to buy anything from you if you cant even sell your basic concepts on the back of your nodoubt reputable professional credentials.

I am sure that I have a better citation index than you have; and if you cannot find my two original papers in Semiconductor Science and Technology of 2003 in which I prove for the first time EVER that charges can be transferred without an electric field being present, and if you could not trace my ArXive papers, then it is clear to me that I must ignore your unfounded criticisms.

'get it out there' is my advice - at least then you wont be kicking yourself quite so hard when someone else eventualy beats you to a proof.

It IS out there! Why can you not find it? I have directed people to this an numerous forums like PolyWell and you tell me "get it out there!" Are you a joker?

[johanfprins]

It's interesting you haven't heard back from the English and Japanese labs if they solicited samples.

They did not really "solicit" samples. I had two treated diamond substrates with me when I attended a diamond conference in Belgium during 2007 and offered the diamonds to these two laboratories since from their presentations it was clear that they should be able to do the experiments using the equipment they have.

You'd think you'd at least get a terse "This doesn't do what you said it does."

Yes I would have expected that too: But maybe they do not want to acknowledge that it does what I am claiming since this will falsify most of their models they have painstakingly built up over many years.

Maybe some of us could write and ask why in a citizen-journalistic sense, if that wouldn't bother you. Maybe if we drum up some interest a lab will do the experiment publicly, and force theorists to explain the results.

You will never get the theorists to agree since this would mean that many of them, if not most of them, received Nobl lPrizes for wrong physics. And now I talk of "saints" like Bohr, Heisenberrg, Born, Dirac etc.

Sorry if you answered this before, but what exactly are the short-term practical applications?

If I had the facilities I would go for computer processors which are faster than the present ones and do not generate heat which has to be blown away by a battery of fans.

How many such labs exist? Are we talking dozens, hundreds?

Labs in which they can extract electrons from diamond surfaces are many: I will not be surprised if there are in the thousands. There is one at Van Der Bilt University which is funded by NASA. But bto mnaufacture microprocessors is another kettle of fish.

If someone wanted to build their own such lab, what kind of investment would they be looking at, roughly? Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions?

I am not a microchip engineer but it should be noted that the Labs working on micro-electronics are expensive; like the one in the research triangle in Northy Carolina. I do not think that one will be able to manufacture a competing microprocessor in your garage. I am too old to know the financial implications involved and need advice on this, but those who can give me the advice are all informed by the "experts" on superconduction, that I must be a crank.
Neither do they say what I must do to convince them that I have superconduction. The reason for this is that nobody, except me, has ever proved that a current can flow through a material while theree is really not an electric field present. Neither does the Meissner effect ptrove this since one can levitate a live frog in a magnetic field, and the latter is not a superconductor. In fact, if the electric-field within a frog would be zero the frog will definitely be dead.
To prove superconduction you must prove that there is no electric-field that can cause acceleration and scattering while the charge-carriers nevertheless move with a constant drift speed as if they are being accelerated and scattered all the time. This has NEVER been proved by anybody EVER; except by myself.

[nogo]

What kind of new small sensors could be developed with the superconducting materials that you are actually able to manufacture?

Better accuracy for a given size due to less thermal noise its a given, but even the lack of cooling requirement is an advantage due to less power consumption and compact format.

It seems to me that using your superconducting material (the sustrates you can build yourself) it should be feasible to prototype a small sensor unit without requiring a manufacturing plant, just by poor-mans means, even if tedious.
It would be a protoype after all, and you could plug it in into some prototyping board circuit and show it around. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Just brainstorming.

[johanfprins]

To rcain,

Please read again what you have written: You made a judgment before making certain of all the facts, I have NEVER done that in my life because a REAL scientist NEVER acts in this manner. Unfortunately we do not have REAL scientists anymore. I just pray that you are NOT trying to practise science since your "talents" definitely lie somewhere else. How aboiut cleaning toilets at your local railway station? I thought about this message the whole day. In the interest of our future I decided that it is necessary to post this message since YOU are the problem; NOT ME!

[johanfprins]

What kind of new small sensors could be developed with the superconducting materials that you are actually able to manufacture?

How about you telling me which sensors I can be build in my garage from a superconducting wafer? If you have a good idea, I am willing to try it. But please do NOT challenge me with "airy-fairy" ideas which you yourself cannot articulate.

[icarus]

Anybody got the ArXiv links to Prins 'relevant' papers?

Is this one? http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607227

(Why doesn't he just post links to the relevant material?)

[nogo]

How about you telling me which sensors I can be build in my garage from a superconducting wafer? If you have a good idea, I am willing to try it. But please do NOT challenge me with "airy-fairy" ideas which you yourself cannot articulate.

I do not know where you got the notion that I was "challenging" you when rather than afirming, I just asked and made it blatant that i was brainstorming.

I find it unfair that you expect me to articulate it better given that I stated, basically in every single one of my posts in this thread, that I am NOT a physicist, sometimes even to ridiculously redundant extents. I couldnt have been more cautious on any of them.

If I dont ask, I cannot know the whys.

I was not lecturing you, I was presenting my inevitably simplified mental model of the situation and genuinely asking for clarification.

I will cease posting on this thread given that I am obviously not up to the required minimum qualifications if that pleases you. My copy of the book is already ordered on air mail, so I will just read it when it arrives and will keep lurking.

Good luck on your project, I really believe you deserve success.

[rcain]

with respect, i suggest therein lies a large part of your problem: you are told your books will not sell/papers will not stand, by people in that business, and you consider their reasons 'foolish'. for 7 years.

Yes I have the proof. Furthermore I have by hook and crook two manuscripts on ArXive for quite a few years already. And I have submitted papers to various journals which were rejected without any valid physics-arguments as to why I am wrong. The only arguments I got is that the BCS model has withstood the test of time and "therefore we do not need another model". Similar to "Ptolemy's model has withstood the test of time and therefore we do not have to consider even the possibilty that the earth is moving".

Importantly however, the BCS model had originally at least 3 people behind it, 5 if you include the London bros., you it seems have so far one adherent, yourself. And they are possibly right, perhaps many other 'theories' exist/can be deamed up - Bogolyubov for a start - but you are in the position of having to do two things - 1) overturn extablished 'praxis', 2) replace it with your own 'theory', in what is now a highly competitive field.

If i understand you position correctly (and please correct me if i'm wrong), your central current proposition is represented by:
1) you have repeatable experimental evidence (2002-2003) of 'novel' superconducting phase in diamond-vacuum interfaces - http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/319 or http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf
2) you have the basis for a more general, descriptive and quanttitative theory of what is happenning (explaining conductivity/supercondicivity in general) - http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0607/0607227.pdf

- and thank you for making these documents publically available.

is this correct, in a nutshell?

who are the people currently working in these fields, (nearest)?

i begin to suspect you consider making a profit on your 'books' more important than contributing to science.

This is a malicious statement. I am NOT a Mark McCutcheon, who does not even understand how a siphon works. If after seven years I could not get anything published in so called "peer-reviewed" journals and my manuscripts on ArXive are ignored, I am supposed NOT to print books; or if I do I am supposed not to cover my costs! REALLY!!

yes. it was a malicious statement. but also true, as a statement of perception at least.

you are not Mark McCutcheon, because you do not make as much mony out of your books as he does. he is more successful than you in that regard. (... possibly. i have no idea who Mark McCutcheon actually is and i fel certain that i will never read any of his books now you have mentioned him).

as to covering your costs, the last time i checked, it cost precisely nothing to copy a file, or make it available on the web. similarly a modest calorific intake is all thats required for thinking and writing, and since you have to continue to breath anyway, might as well throw those in for free.

of couse if, or dare we suppose 'when', you receive the Nobel prize, the book signing deals are going to be no problem, beleive me. your book business will run itself. it's in the bag. but first, the 'legitimation' or 'habilitation' of your scienctific claims, surely.

please, i have nothing against you or your books or your book business. just to tell you i shall not be buying one anytime soon. there is simply too much (free) information to get through as it is, and i no longer read for pleasure and am probably shorter of cash than you are. but, hey, maybe that will all change.

you see, it doesn't come across too well. what is more important - your {sic} online book business, or your science?

What else must I do when my science is consistently blocked by the "physics-church" for frivolous and stupid reasons? By writing a book I am getting the truth out, but I cannot do this for free on my pension income. So what is wrong to ask money for a book on which I have worked myself to death for two years. The book sales can NEVER repay the money I could have earned by teaching at a University; which I could have rather done.
If you can prove any of the physics in my book wrong, I will refund you! But PLEASE do not be so narrowminded as the likes of Brian Josephson, Frank Wilczek, Gerahardus 'tHooft and similar clowns; who think that they understand physics.

there you go again.

my science is consistently blocked by the "physics-church" for frivolous and stupid reasons

- 'your' science? a consipracy? 'frivolous' and 'stupid' 'reasons' of others? - this vocabulary is not really helping anyone, least of all your own cause, and certainly not any cause of science. it is a historical observation we make on a state of (current) affairs, and that we probably pretty much all agree on. it is not news, in itself. nor ir it 'your' science, and nor are all (or indeed many) established scientists 'stuipid' or 'frivolous'. you know this.

By writing a book I am getting the truth out, but I cannot do this for free on my pension income.

- no. by writting a book you are transcribing it from your head on to paper (or silicon, whatever); by 'getting the truth out' you are talking about publication, ie. (widespread) availability to an audience. whether ot not it is the 'truth' you are getting out, or just what you and you alone are claiming is the truth, is a whole different matter also. as to supplimenting your pension income, if that were important, then as you say, you would have taken up the lecture rostrum again. from your evident enthusiasm i'm sure that wouldnt have stopped you writting..

If you can prove any of the physics in my book wrong, I will refund you! ...

- wrong on so many levels. but i may take you up on your kind offer once you have the Nobel safely on your mantlepiece.

As to these other gentlemen you mention, well i suppose i should feel perversely complimented, but whether they can be accurately described as narrow minded is at best, debatable; personaly, i dont think i know enough to be narrow minded about many things, so your entreaty may not be lost, for that reason.

surely it is your duty then, to steer them in the right direction, if as you claim yours is the right direction, it shouldnt be so hard to gain some support along the way, no?

This is exactly what I am trying to do by using the only avenue still open to me.

well, seems to me you may be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - to be seen, recognised, accepted and promulgated. Your credibility is all, and you jeopardise that by by promoting yourself, your plight, or your interests, over the 'substance' of your work.

but no one is going to support you if they know nothing of your work, and they certainly wont be inclined to buy anything from you if you cant even sell your basic concepts on the back of your nodoubt reputable professional credentials.

I am sure that I have a better citation index than you have; and if you cannot find my two original papers in Semiconductor Science and Technology of 2003 in which I prove for the first time EVER that charges can be transferred without an electric field being present, and if you could not trace my ArXive papers, then it is clear to me that I must ignore your unfounded criticisms.

i am sure you have. i am sure that your's is much longer than mine. i hope that thought makes you happy.

it should, because your 'following' or lack of it, is what this is all about, yes?

seriously, i would be more that happy to do whatever is within my meagre powers to help promote your findings, applications, theories, who knows. but please dont make it more difficult than it need be, which is difficult enough.

As to 'PROOF', that is a strong word. something about 'consensus'.

and as to 'EVER' - does that include 'since', or 'about to'? again my question, who currently is publishing peer reviewed stuff in your fields. (please dont make me look it up). aren't they a better potential vector for for admission into 'the-church' establishment?

It woud help if you could link those papers (again) - thanks.

But I go back to my opeining question: components of your propositon - experimental and theoritcal parts - please could you confirm, correct or elaborate on the definitive version?

'get it out there' is my advice - at least then you wont be kicking yourself quite so hard when someone else eventualy beats you to a proof.

It IS out there! Why can you not find it? I have directed people to this an numerous forums like PolyWell and you tell me "get it out there!" Are you a joker?

Ah, to be a successful joker. alas not. but then again it is not that important to me whether i am perceived as one or not. It is by your own admission, desparately important for you, and if what you say is true, critically important for science, that you are taken seriously.

Perhaps i have been a little 'hyper-critcal' of your presentation. I am sorry i dont wish to cause any personal offence, but experience has taught most of us to apply high levels of skepticism and indeed cynisism, universally. you have a lot to cut through.

And i am very glad to see you here, by the way, honouring both our pages, and our discussions.

i am also very interested to learn more about your experimental work and your theories. am i right in citing the links above as good places to start?
(apologies if i have mised something else earlier in this long thread)

and please could you summarise your present aims?

as i understand it, you are seeking what, further experimental remits/funding plus possible applications development contracts, and/or a wider audience/recognition for/verification of your theoretical model (recognising that this means a complete overhaull of an established scientific/descriptive platform)?

respectfully, yours, &c.

[rcain]

To rcain,

Please read again what you have written: You made a judgment before making certain of all the facts, I have NEVER done that in my life because a REAL scientist NEVER acts in this manner. Unfortunately we do not have REAL scientists anymore. I just pray that you are NOT trying to practise science since your "talents" definitely lie somewhere else. How aboiut cleaning toilets at your local railway station? I thought about this message the whole day. In the interest of our future I decided that it is necessary to post this message since YOU are the problem; NOT ME!

i'll ignore that, since it was unnecessary, and uncalled for.
your words sound like those of a petulant child.
see my detailed response above, if you have any civility left in you.

[johanfprins]

Anybody got the ArXiv links to Prins 'relevant' papers?

Is this one? http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607227

(Why doesn't he just post links to the relevant material?)

Yes it is one which has been written a long time ago. It is not a bad manuscript but since then my arguments had been honed to be far better. This is why I posted them as extracts from my book on my website while writing the book. Thus you all had ample time to read and reread the arguments on super-conduction in a better format.

[johanfprins]

I do not know where you got the notion that I was "challenging" you when rather than afirming, I just asked and made it blatant that i was brainstorming.

I apologize if I have overreacted. I can assure you that even if I can think of any device which I can manufacture in my garage cheaply, nobody will want to hear about it. I have offered superconducting diamond substrates on my website for nearly a year now, and there has not been any interest yet. The reason for this is clear when you look at the bigotry of rcain on this website.In effect accusing me of being a crook.

I will cease posting on this thread given that I am obviously not up to the required minimum qualifications if that pleases you. My copy of the book is already ordered on air mail, so I will just read it when it arrives and will keep lurking.

Please keep on asking questions and forgive me when I overreact after I have had to contend with the prejudices of rcain. During the Apartheid years in South Africa I was similarly insulted by the mainstream believers in this horrid policy. How can I be right when the majority is all for it? So I have become a bit sensitive.

Good luck on your project, I really believe you deserve success.

Thanks for your support

[johanfprins]

with respect, i suggest therein lies a large part of your problem: you are told your books will not sell/papers will not stand, by people in that business, and you consider their reasons 'foolish'. for 7 years.

When their reasons rely on the argument that the BCS theory is so well established that we do not need another theory, they are not just foolish but not one of them is even a scientist's asshole.

Importantly however, the BCS model had originally at least 3 people behind it, 5 if you include the London bros., you it seems have so far one adherent, yourself.

Do you see why you are a bigot? Where is your proof that I am the only adherent. Like I said, I hope you are not a scientist since your best vocation would be that of a toilet cleaner.

And they are possibly right, perhaps many other 'theories' exist/can be deamed up - Bogolyubov for a start -

. As Einstein said, only a single small fact is required to prove a theory wrong. Let us take the simplest one which proves without doubt that all the traditional models from London bros. Ginzberg Landau, BCS , Bogolyubov and what have you are all nonsense. All these models assume that a coherent, harmonic wave can follow a circular path. This is physically and mathematically impossible: QED.

but you are in the position of having to do two things - 1) overturn extablished 'praxis', 2) replace it with your own 'theory', in what is now a highly competitive field.

Exactly and this is what I have been trying to do and since the field is competitive the mainstream believers in nonsense, like you, see to it that any other ideas than what they want to believe are duly censored out by the so-called "peer-reviewers".

If i understand you position correctly (and please correct me if i'm wrong), your central current proposition is represented by:
1) you have repeatable experimental evidence (2002-2003) of 'novel' superconducting phase in diamond-vacuum interfaces - http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/319 or http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf
2) you have the basis for a more general, descriptive and quanttitative theory of what is happenning (explaining conductivity/supercondicivity in general) - http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0607/0607227.pdf

- and thank you for making these documents publically available.

is this correct, in a nutshell?

Yes, this is correct.

who are the people currently working in these fields, (nearest)?

Nobody, since the people who work on super-conduction believe that the charge-carriers must be bosons (Cooper pairs): This is wrong.
This can be easily proved by the characteristics of the radiation one obtains from biased Josephson junction. The energies of the charge-carriers must be the same within a superconductor. Thus by inserting an insulating junction with a voltage V across it, the difference in this ground-state energy across this junction is qV where q is the charge of a charge carrier. Thus when a charge-carrier moves through the junction from the high-energy side to the low energy side, it must lose qV in energy. However, while moving through the layer, a charge-carrier in addition gains another amount of energy qV owing to acceleration.
Thus when it has moved through the layer it must radiate away an amount of energy 2qV. Guess what is experimentally measured? 2eV. Thus the charge carriers are singly-charged According to Josephson's derivation the charge carriers must be doubly charged since an AC current forms over the junction. WE ALL KNOW THAT ON THE QUANTUM SCALE RADIATION IS NOT EMITTED BY AC-CURRENTS!!!! but from one energy-level to another.

yes. it was a malicious statement. but also true, as a statement of perception at least.

Yes the perception of a prejudiced bigot!

you are not Mark McCutcheon, because you do not make as much mony out of your books as he does. he is more successful than you in that regard. (... possibly. i have no idea who Mark McCutcheon actually is and i fel certain that i will never read any of his books now you have mentioned him).

You see what I mean? You irresponsibly jump to conclusions without checking your facts. Like I have posted, I just hope you are not trying to do science. You are not fit to be a scientist.

as to covering your costs, the last time i checked, it cost precisely nothing to copy a file, or make it available on the web. similarly a modest calorific intake is all thats required for thinking and writing, and since you have to continue to breath anyway, might as well throw those in for free.

You see why you are stupid. Time is money and if I did not spend day-in and day-out writing I could have earned money by doing something else; AND spend more time with my grandchildren. But of course this is probably too logical for you to ever understand.

of couse if, or dare we suppose 'when', you receive the Nobel prize, the book signing deals are going to be no problem, beleive me. your book business will run itself. it's in the bag. but first, the 'legitimation' or 'habilitation' of your scienctific claims, surely.

Over a 10 year period it has been proved that the mainstream scientists on super-conduction will not tolerate any ideas outside the mainstream dogma. The only reason why I got it published in Semiconductor Science and Technology is that I had to write a review for them on ion implantation into diamond, and thus succeeded to slip it past the idiots in control of superconductor physics. Since then no such luck again. This why I was forced to write a book. Our "peer-reviewed" process has become censorship; and don't think it only happens within the field of global-warming. It has become the rule to protect mainstream dogma and NOT to allow anything at variance with it to become published.

- no. by writting a book you are transcribing it from your head on to paper (or silicon, whatever); by 'getting the truth out' you are talking about publication, ie. (widespread) availability to an audience.

If the mainstream bigots like you do not allow publication, what else can I do but to write a book. The frivolous and stupid reasons that had been given are quoted in my book, but of course you will again refuse to first looking at the facts, before mouthing off in your usual irresponsible manner.

but i may take you up on your kind offer once you have the Nobel safely on your mantlepiece.

You will just be wasting your money since such a reading requires common sense and you do not have this.

well, seems to me you may be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -

Exactly, but it is impossible to explain the evidence to people who do not even understand when Coulomb's law, Ampere's law and Ohm's relationship apply and when not. This is what the mainstream physicists on super-conduction first have to learn.

seriously, i would be more that happy to do whatever is within my meagre powers to help promote your findings, applications, theories, who knows. but please dont make it more difficult than it need be, which is difficult enough.

Please don't even try. You are obviously such a bloody fool that it will damage my good standing if you suddenly agree with me.

It would help if you could link those papers (again) - thanks.

For the ArXive papers, just go to ArXive and type in my name Johan F. Prins. The papers on the original experiments are at Semiconductor Science and Technology, volume 18, NO. 3, mARCH 2003 PAGES S125-130, and S131-140. When I wrote these papers I was also still caught within the stupefying paradigm of the mainstream physicists and therefore the explanation, although correct, is long and windy.
So let's summarize it for you: You extract electrons from a HIGHLY doped n-type diamond surface with an anode. The applied field from the anode is cancelled by a dipole layer forming across the diamond surface. When the polarization field of the dipole layer cancels the applied field, electrons stop to flow from the diamond. If you then increase te applied field, the dipole layer increases in width to again cancel the extra applied field. IF you have enough electrons available you can extract the electron layer to just reach the anode. When now increasing the applied field further electrons cascade into the anode BUT the electrons between the diamond surface and anode STILL form part of a dipole. Thus their density must increase until the applied electric field between the diamond and anode is cancelled by the dipole's polarization field. When this equilibrium condition is reached there is NO field which can accelerate electrons from the diamond to the anode.
BUT EVEN THOUGH THE APPLIED FIELD IS CANCELLED, A CURRENT KEEPS ON FLOWING!

Perhaps i have been a little 'hyper-critcal' of your presentation. I am sorry i dont wish to cause any personal offence, but experience has taught most of us to apply high levels of skepticism and indeed cynisism, universally. you have a lot to cut through.

Scepticism is understandable, but what you display is bigotry. And unfortunately bigotry is in control of science at present. You are thus not an exception but represents the general rule. Yes I know there are real cranks out there but when I come across any claim that sounds cranky I first try and understand how the other person has reasoned, and only if I can prove in terms of elementary physics that he/she has made a blunder will I state this.

and please could you summarise your present aims?

My present aim is to get my message out to people with common sense. Such people are scarce within the physics community and non-existent within the superconductor community. I need electronics firms to cooperate with me to make superconducting devices like microprocessors, but when I approach them they ask their "experts" on superconduction to advise them and are then overwhelmed by the same nonsensical arguments you have raised on this forum.

[rcain]

Johan

Firstly, thank your for your answers to my questions and explaining a little more about your work and your theory. this is helpful.

what is not helpful is falling into a fit and screaming unfounded insults at people.

if you are having problems coming to terms with your obvious and progressive senile dementia, or some other phsycholological problem perhaps, then unfortunately you have come to the wrong place for sympathy or help. (i note you've have suceeded in pissing off many people on this forum in the short time you've been here, with your rudeness).

it is no surprise to me therefor that the establishement tell you to 'go away' whenever you approach them - they probably regard you as an old crank and a pain in the arse.

shame, your physics looked interesting. unfortunately it is likely to be buried with you if you go on like this.

[GIThruster]

Thank you for your well-meant advice, as well as the information you sent by PM. My problem is that a person who was a top executive (when I say TOP I mean TOP) at Jet Propulsion Laboratories before his retirement tried (already 5 years ago) to induce them to spend a modest amount of money to reproduce my results. He was stopped in his tracks by two so-called "experts" on superconduction.

Every office, every person and every day is different at NASA. I've been told the current head of the OCT isn't a particularly open thinker but you never know until you try. Can't hurt to send an email and that's enough to start the process. If it took a professional grant proposal to test the waters, I'd recommend differently but anyone can write an email. If you focus on the fact you can have a validation study of your claims done in the US, and that you wonder whether NASA doesn't already have the proper equipment and would they spend 3 days to test your claims, you might get a LOT farther than you think.

What else do you want me to demonstrate? There is not single superconducting phase in the world (except the one I demonstrated in 2000) for which it has been proved that there is no electric-field when a current is flowing. Show me a single experiment EVER where this was demonstrated; and I will repeat it. I have been the first person EVER to demonstrate that this is actually possible. So what do you want me to do more?

I want you to convince the right people to do an independent replication with a very large substrate--much larger than anything you've created to date. NASA could do this. If they don't have the equipment laying around, they could still pay for a study using equipment on rent for relatively little expense.

[johanfprins]

Thank you for your answers to my questions and explaining a little more about your work and your theory. this is helpful.
what is not helpful is falling into a fit and screaming unfounded insults at people.

Look who is talking. You are the bigot who came online with insults. This reminds me of Nelson Mandela who has tried for years to be reasonable until he decided that the time has come to fight back. He then ended up as the terrorist! My friend YOU and the scumbags in control of superconductor physics are the terrorists: Just like the people who jailed Mandela has been proved with time to have been the REAL scumbags. YOU and your ilk will be disgraced in the same manner. GOOD LUCK and FU.