Room-temperature superconductivity?

[WizWom]

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?)

Somehow I doubt JP will murder his wife and get beaten up in prison...

[icarus]

Ok, so distilling through yet more verbiage do we have the basic facts as?;

i) Prins is claiming a revolutionary new theory for superconductivity that explains many anomalous results in the field.

ii) Using a serendipitous discovery extending Prins general theory of super-conduction with an 'added physics-factor ', Prins claims to have manufactured a diamond wafer capable of being placed into a special 'phase' and produced experimental evidence for room temp. SC. (published 2003).

iii) Prins has filed for a patent to protect some aspects of the SC work.

iv) To date, no one else is known to have repeated the experiments of Prins regarding room temp. SC.

v) Prins is requesting financial backing to further his work.

[Betruger]

VA - a lab or manufacturer willing to use/demo his stuff.
VB - financial backing to do it himself.

Someone get him in touch with the former and this thing will either make or break itself. There's no need or use for any complex negotiating and nit-picking over Dr Prins' character and there shouldn't be any need to loudly and explicitly invoke revolutionary physics. Only get the stuff thru practical testing. Just build the thing and see.

[icarus]

Oh yeah, and your oft repeated 'no electric-field in a superconductor' is wrong (or perhaps a blatant lie). Firstly, a null vector field is mathematically different from the non-existence of an electric (vector) field. At a minimum, you mean a null electric field unless you are choosing to repeal Maxwell as well?

E = - grad (phi) + (d/dt)(A)

What you can maybe say is that there is zero potential gradient as it is voltage that you are specifically talking about measuring (and even then not directly) ... is it not? Further, what of a possible 'vector potential' contribution (Aharonov–Bohm effect) to the electric field?

[johanfprins]

Thanks for your interesting post and careful reasoning: You are addressing the major confusion about superconduction which Onnes introduced inadvertantly 99 years ago and which nobody, not even my hero Einstein, has picked up. I will proceed to quote excerpts from your post and provide answers. If you are not happy with my answers, please come back with further questions.

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).

I accept this as a good starting point.

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:

I assume that by "intensity" you mean "electric current". Yes your argument is so far sound that the only definition we have of electric resistance of a material is supplied by Ohm's law.

- Resistance is the division between electrical potential difference applied to the material and the electrical intensity.

I again assume that "electrical intensity" is "electric current". What you give is the empirical relationship that Ohm derived for many materials through which a constant current flows under the action of a constant potential difference; and which he then used to define electric resistance for such materials. I accept.

The expression for Ohm's empirical relationship is deceptively simple: What is missed in the scientific literature is that Ohm's "law" which defines electric resistance, is only valid under suitable physical conditions. The most important condition is that the charge-carriers (constituting the current) must on average generate a constant current: i.e. a current which can be mathematically approximated to consist of charge-carriers which all move with a constant "drift-speed". This is of course not what is really happening physically: Each charge-carrier is, in fact, sequentially accelerated and scatterred all the time. Only when the density of these acceleration-scatterring events becomes high enough can their movement be approximated with a constant drift speed and only then does Ohm's law apply. The scattering events resists current flow and this thus means that Ohm's law is only valid when the material has a high enough density of scattering events (which constitude such a high resistance) so that the current can be approximated as moving with a constant speed.

Here comes the deception: This means that if the charge-carriers do not scatter, Ohm's law is not physically valid. Thus Ohm's law cannot define zero resistance; even though it seems mathematically that it can. One should never forget that a mathematical formula is not physics: It cannot be applied to any physics which it is not modelling. When you do that you are not doing physics but Voodoo. Unfortunately it has become the tendency over the past eighty years to rather do Voodoo: This practice seems to have increased in frequency after Paul Dirac claimed that "when the mathematics is beautiful the physics must be correct".

- Conductivity and resistivity are related with the resistance (previously and macroscopically defined )
- Resistivity can conceptually be seen in a similar way as the resistance.

Resistivity has been introduced for two reasons: 1. to have a parameter which can be used to calculate the resistance of a material for any shape and size of the material: 2. It is also used as a more abstract concept in order to use calculus. From this one can use the concept of the "resistivity at a point". Firstly "a point" is a mathematical abstraction and therefore " the resistiviy at a point" must also be one. Fortunately when using these abstractions in order to model by using calculus, we get results which agree very well with experiment. If this were not so we probably would have had great difficulty to model physics. Why such abstractions give reasonable results is another, more difficult, philosophical matter. I believe it is a gift from God.

First thing I want to remark is that those three (resistance, resistivity and conductivity) magnitudes are defined and very clearly defined, I think.

Only for materials which have high enough resistances so that Ohm's law actually applies. It has never been defined for any other material.

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.

Only for materials which have high enough electric resistances so that Ohm's law actually applies. It has never been defined for any other material.

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.

As pointed out above Ohm's law does not apply physically in this case so you cannot make this deduction even though the mathematical expression of Ohm's law is commensurate with this deduction. What you are doing here is Voodoo.

From your measures, you must conclude your material has zero as value of resistance.

I do not mind calling a superconductor a zero-resistor: BUT one is then just using two different names for the same thing: This is so since the concept of zero resistance has never been defined before Onnes made his measurement: This is so since this concept is not inherent in Ohm's law.

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.

You cannot define superconduction in terms of zero resistance when you do not have a separate valid definition for zero resistance: Such a definition has never existed ever.

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?

As already mentioned above I do not have a radical opposition to calling it zero resistance as long as it does not imply that zero resistance has ben defined by Ohm's law which can never be valid if there are not sufficient scattering of the charge-carriers. I am reluctantly willing to accept it as a new definition for zero resistance in terms of superconduction; but not as a separate standing concept which defines superconduction. The reason why I am reluctant to use this concept to define zero resistance is as follows: What do you then call the resistance of a material through which charge-carriers are accelerated without any scattering taking place. Is this not also zero resistance but now without V being zero? Of course it is, and such a material is not a superconductor. Thus to define superconduction in terms of zero resistance cannot be valid generally.

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.

As I have pointed out above; the concept of a physical parameter at a point is a mathematical abstraction which fortunately, by the grace of God, works when using calculus. The incontrovertible fact is that an electric field only forms between separate charges and this electric-field then constitutes distributed energy between the charges. Thus, to talk about an electric field between two points is physically more correct than to talk about an electric field vector at a point. The latter is only a useful mathematical abstraction. It is exactly this confusion which has led to the physically invalid concept of an electric field-energy around a solitary charge; which requires mathematical fudging called renormalisation in quantum field theory.

[johanfprins]

"Interpersonal Skills" are highly under-rated.

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

You are back again raising a STINK after you have promised to leave this thread. What great interpersonal skills you have! You make me laugh

[BenTC]

icarus,

Points i), ii), iii) - agreed.

iv) To date, no one else is known to have repeated the experiments of Prins regarding room temp. SC.

Agreed there are no published results. However I believe Johan is genuine with his story of the lab that reproduced his results and then clammed up. Actually, I find it quite interesting that "apparently" no report was produced. If the results were negative, then I'd think there would be at least one page internally saying so, and it wouldn't cost anything at all to return that to Johan. However if there were significant results, that would be a reason to not publish any results. However the complicating factor of Johan's gruff personality and the possibity that they were put offside and became unhelpful. [/quote]

v) Prins is requesting financial backing to further his work.

While I'm sure Johan would welcome some financial backing, I don't get the feeling he is seeking it here. I wanted to check that feeling so I reviewed some of the old posts and found the following from various posts:

There is interest, but not from countries I would like to work with.

What I am looking for is a well-established company who has the expertise to design and develop processor chips. To sign a non-disclosure agreement with them and start to use what I already have and can show them.

I do not need an Angel to fund me to do further resaerch since the proof that I have is better than for any other superconductor ever discovered before.

I have at the moment a commitee of friends with the qualifications you suggest who are trying to find investors. Thus I should not work at cross purposes.

That doesn't sound like someone soliciting finance here. To me Johan seems much more focused on our understanding.

[johanfprins]

Ok, so distilling through yet more verbiage do we have the basic facts as?;

Much better: You have now checked your facts. There is only one small mistake which can lead to confusion abd this comes from:

ii) Using a serendipitous discovery extending Prins general theory of super-conduction with an 'added physics-factor ', Prins claims to have manufactured a diamond wafer capable of being placed into a special 'phase' and produced experimental evidence for room temp. SC. (published 2003).

This might be construed that the phase I have generated by extracting electrons from a diamond with an anode (2003 publiactions) is the same as the diamond-wafer phase I have discovered since. It cannot be since the the original phase only exists after extracting electrons into the vacuum, and it only transfers charge from one electrode to the other.

[johanfprins]

VA - a lab or manufacturer willing to use/demo his stuff.
VB - financial backing to do it himself.

Someone get him in touch with the former and this thing will either make or break itself. There's no need or use for any complex negotiating and nit-picking over Dr Prins' character and there shouldn't be any need to loudly and explicitly invoke revolutionary physics. Only get the stuff thru practical testing. Just build the thing and see.

Amen!

[johanfprins]

Oh yeah, and your oft repeated 'no electric-field in a superconductor' is wrong (or perhaps a blatant lie). Firstly, a null vector field is mathematically different from the non-existence of an electric (vector) field. At a minimum, you mean a null electric field unless you are choosing to repeal Maxwell as well?

E = - grad (phi) + (d/dt)(A)

So where does the time-dependent magnetic field comes from during the flow of an equilibrium current?

The London brothers used the same route you are now proposing and has been highly praised for their "revolutionary insights". Nobody has ever noticed that they equated two expressions which are both zero as being equal because they are both zero. My how easy physics would have been if this is allowed!They also started off with the so-called "first London equation" by assuming that an integration constant can be taken as non-zero while in fact from physics it is easily proved that it must be zero.

What you can maybe say is that there is zero potential gradient as it is voltage that you are specifically talking about measuring (and even then not directly) ... is it not? Further, what of a possible 'vector potential' contribution (Aharonov–Bohm effect) to the electric field?

I treat these aspects in detail in my forthcoming book. Aharonov's and Bohm's derivation is wrong; since they equate a circular vector field point-for-point to a conservative vector field in order obtain the nonsense result that an electron can interact with a magnetic field even when its centre-of-charge does not move through the magnetic field. When you analyse the double-slit diffraction experiment they used as a thought experiment correctly you will find that the centre-of-charge of the electron moves smack-bang through the magnetic field. Go to www.cathodixx.com, click on The Physics Delusion and read the extract on Double Slit Diffraction.

It is also this wrong derivation by Aharanov and Bohm which leads to the wrong conclusion that the superconducting charge-carriers which trap a magnetic flux quantum through a ring are doubly-charged. The fact is that they singly-charged.

[johanfprins]

Agreed there are no published results. However I believe Johan is genuine with his story of the lab that reproduced his results and then clammed up. Actually, I find it quite interesting that "apparently" no report was produced. If the results were negative, then I'd think there would be at least one page internally saying so, and it wouldn't cost anything at all to return that to Johan. However if there were significant results, that would be a reason to not publish any results. However the complicating factor of Johan's gruff personality and the possibity that they were put offside and became unhelpful.

I have NEVER been party to this investigation. Maybe they were afraid that I might influence the outcome? It was initiated by a consultant of ESKOM after he read my first book and had a discussion with me. I have not even been asked to make a presentation to ESKOM. The little bit I know is what came through this consultant when he came back and asked more questions. Thus to blame it on my "gruff personality" is unfair. There might be a STINK somewhere as GIThruster charges, but I am not part of that STINK in any manner whatsoever.

To me Johan seems much more focused on our understanding.

You are correct since I have found very intelligent questions on this thread for which I am truly thankful. If the exposure of ideas and pertinent questions on this forum lead to a suitable company with the required infrastructure becoming involved it will be an added bonus. I am just not very willing at my "ripe old age" to still try and do experiments in my garage: Although my committee of friends who are looking for investors have not ruled out further experiments; if required. But they hope to involve a younger scientist to actually do the work. The last 10 years I have not had a very pleasant life and do now want to spend more quality time with my wife, children and grandchildren before I kick the bucket: Yes I know my wife is a remarkable woman to stick it out with a s..t like me!

[icarus]

Why didn't you address my first and most obvious point that you are wrong in saying that 'there is no electric-field' since this implies it does not exist at all? Begin here,

E = - grad(phi)

What you might be able to say is that that the electric field tends to a null vector field. Although the e-field is not measured directly but only through the gradient of the potential (voltage) which is probably not measured directly either ... so categorically stating the non-existence of the electric field requires an objection to Maxwell's equations, and a leap of faith.

The time-dependent part cannot either be ruled out so categorically either unless you have somehow measured the mag. vector potential across the entire frequency spectrum for oscillatory, yet time-averaged zero-field components, good luck with that.

If the 'no electric field' argument is the crux of your SC argument it seems mathematically shaky since the electric field is a derived quantity so postulating its non-existence is nonsense from the beginning. Lets just say it tends to zero in some limiting behavior ... and then consider what that implies for the gradients and their boundary conditions of your SC region.

[hanelyp]

A super conductor, by definition, has zero resistance. That is not the same as zero impedance, impedance consisting of a combination of resistance, inductance, or capacitance. So long as there is impedance there can be a difference in potential between 2 points on a conductor. Ohms law can be applied to general impedance.

When voltage is applied to a superconductor current rises at a rate limited by inductive impedance, the energy being stored as a magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance

[johanfprins]

Why didn't you address my first and most obvious point that you are wrong in saying that 'there is no electric-field' since this implies it does not exist at all

Because I have never said so! I have consistently stated that the "applied electric field" IS CANCELLED!!! And therefore there is no electric field which can accelerate charge carriers.
I never said that it "does not exist at all". I cannot help to question the motives of somebody who tries to put words in my mouth. This is an old trick to obfuscate a discussion. So PLEASE refrain!

Begin here,

E = - grad(phi)

What you might be able to say is that that the electric field tends to a null vector field.

This is exactly what I have stated all along: The applied electric is cancelled: Your idea that it "tends to a null vector fied" without giving a physics reason why and how it achieves this, is Voodoo. I am clearly saying that an applied electric field can ONLY be cancelled by an opposite polarisation field. If you know Maxwell's equations, as you claim you do, you should realise that there is no other way in which an applied electric field can be cancelled ever.

Although the e-field is not measured directly but only through the gradient of the potential (voltage) which is probably not measured directly either ...

Why can you not measure the latter directly? It is simple to measure the voltage difference over different distances: If this were not so we would not have been able to control electricity and/or electronics.

My guess is that you deliberately want to obfuscate the simple physics involved. The fact remains that there is no voltage difference between any two points. This means in "real physics" that charge-carriers cannot be accelerated. And this means from Newton's second law that there is no net force and thus no net electric field!

so categorically stating the non-existence of the electric field requires an objection to Maxwell's equations, and a leap of faith.

I repeat: If you read carefully I did not categorically state the "non-existence" of the field but the "cancellation of the applied field" so that it cannot accelerate charge carriers. This is an experimental fact not "a leap of faith".

The time-dependent part cannot either be ruled out so categorically either unless you have somehow measured the mag. vector potential across the entire frequency spectrum for oscillatory, yet time-averaged zero-field components, good luck with that.

Again you are trying to obfuscate the issue by applying mathematics which does not relate in any way to a steady-state condition when a steady-state current is flowing; which according to Ampere's law generates a time-independent magnetic field. Go to ANY text book on Electrodynamics and you will see that for steady-state conditions the magnetic field (and thus its vector potential) DOES NOT CHANGE WITH TIME. So to include a time-changing vector potential as if it manifests when an equilibrium current is flowing through a superconductor is not based on ANY experimental fact or known physics: It is physics nonsense: Voodoo.

If the 'no electric field' argument is the crux of your SC argument it seems mathematically shaky since the electric field is a derived quantity so postulating its non-existence is nonsense from the beginning.

To again repeat: Please do not put words in my mouth: I have consistently said that the applied electric field is "cancelled" so that it cannot accelerate charge-carriers: Or do you believe that charge-carriers are being accelerated within a superconductor? If the latter is the case, why is the potential difference zero?

Lets just say it tends to zero in some limiting behavior ... and then consider what that implies for the gradients and their boundary conditions of your SC region.

It implies nothing since what you are stating is Voodoo with no experimental basis. What I am stating is fact: If a current flows between two contacts without a potential difference over the contacts, then there CANNOT be a net electric field accelerating charge carriers. If this is not so it would mean that Newton's laws are wrong. And I am not yet willing to reject Newton's laws just because you want me to ignore them.

[johanfprins]

When voltage is applied to a superconductor current rises at a rate limited by inductive impedance, the energy being stored as a magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance

So you claim that this ONLY happens for a superconductor and NOT for a normal conductor? The energy stored in the magnetic field after a steady state current has been achieved is THE SAME for a normal conductor AND FOR a superconductor through which the same current is flowing. So what are you really trying to say? How does this cancel an electric field within a superconductor?