The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Thank you, but what I'm really interested in is how Schroe. compliant tunnelling can cause a DC voltage to give rise to an AC current so accurately that it was used as the international standard definition of a volt.
Josephson's model based on "phase-slipping" explains it as an AC current. However, it is not a real AC current, but jumps in the current which would not have been there if there were not a voltage over the junction.
There are many theories that explain bits and pieces of SC but all are contradicted by other known SC phenomena.
Since not one of these theories have been based on the actual mechanism that is responsible for superconduction; namely movement by quantum fluctuations subject to Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time (which is NOT an "uncertainty" relationship but relates to wave resonance)
Actually it seems to me that your theory is very similar to current thinking on ballistic electrons, what would you say are the main differences?
No, ballistic electrons move classically, while the charge-carriers within a superconductor do not move classically since they are not accelerated in order to move. If they had to be accelerated the applied voltage will not be cancelled within the superconductor.

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

In precision metrology, the Josephson effect provides an exactly reproducible conversion between frequency and voltage. Since the frequency is already defined precisely and practically by the caesium standard, the Josephson effect is used, for most practical purposes, to give the definition of a volt (although, as of July 2007, this is not the official BIPM definition[4]]).
However, it is not a real AC current, but jumps in the current which would not have been there if there were not a voltage over the junction.
It is an extremely accurate sinusoidal AC and isn't associated with quantum fluctuations.
Whilst I agree that any SC model involving electron pairing is wrong it doesn't alter the fact that the Josephson equations check out 100% in the lab. The Josephson equations say nothing about electron-pairing, using rather the Ginzberg-Landau complex phase order parameter, where phase has nothing to do with angle but refers rather to ice, water, steam being the phases of water.
Also you will see in the ARPES paper that McElroy uses STM on an active super-conductor. Josephson coupling has only been seen between SCs, but if they were only normal electrons then his STM signal would have first registered a Josephson signal before getting into normal operating range for electrons. This was not seen and proves conclusively that SC is not caused by electrons.
It would be worthwhile looking at that McElroy paper to see his measurements, since your model must explain what he measures.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Post by happyjack27 »

i'll continue in the wave-particle duality thread as suggested.

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

Thanks man. Actually when we get on to my model of SC the question as to whether N bosons is actually N separate entities becomes very relevant.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:
In precision metrology, the Josephson effect provides an exactly reproducible conversion between frequency and voltage. Since the frequency is already defined precisely and practically by the caesium standard, the Josephson effect is used, for most practical purposes, to give the definition of a volt (although, as of July 2007, this is not the official BIPM definition[4]]).
I must admit that I did not go deeply into the "AC-current" and will first have to know the circuit they are using, and what they are measuring to conclude that there is actually an AC-current across the junction.

What I did, was to show that when you place a voltage V over the insulating junction, then "photons" are emitted, each with a frequency 2qV where q is the charge of a single charge-carrier: i.e. the radiation is not caused by doubly-charged charge-carriers, but by singly charged charge-carriers, which move from an energy level on the high energy side into an energy-level 2qV lower on the low energy side. Thus, the light is not caused by an AC current but by "quantum jumps" as it must on the quantum scale. If Josephson's derivation is correct the charge-carriers causing the AC current must be doubly-charged; and jump to-and-for through the junction. I find this highly unlikely on the quantum scale.
It is an extremely accurate sinusoidal AC and isn't associated with quantum fluctuations.
Within a superconductor the charges are transferred by quantum fluctuations, or else they will accelerate and emit radiation. When they move through the junction with a voltage V across it, they are accelerated to emit "photons" with a minimum energy qV; but, in addition, since the charge-carriers on the low energy side have a lower polarization energy (also by an amount qV) than on the high energy side, the "photon" energy is 2qV, even though the charge on the charge-carrier is only q.
Whilst I agree that any SC model involving electron pairing is wrong it doesn't alter the fact that the Josephson equations check out 100% in the lab. The Josephson equations say nothing about electron-pairing, using rather the Ginzberg-Landau complex phase order parameter
Yes it is amazing that this "phase-order" concept seems to work in this case, but it is of course not real physics. Aharanov and Bohm used the same phase order to deduce a paranormal interaction between an electron and a magnetic field, while, as they claim, the electron charge does not move through the magnetic field.

The fact is that when analyzing the problem in terms of the boundary conditions, instead of fudging a fictitious "phase order field" the electron's center of charge does actually move smack bang through the magnetic field.
Also you will see in the ARPES paper that McElroy uses STM on an active super-conductor. Josephson coupling has only been seen between SCs, if they were only normal electrons then his STM signal would have first registered a Josephson signal before getting into normal operating range for electrons.
Unfortunately I do not now have the time to study these papers in detail since I am overloaded with tasks which are more important to my investors. When I have time I will look at these papers and get back to you.
This was not seen and proves conclusively that SC is not caused by electrons.
The charge-carriers within any material are not electrons, but localized electron-waves. In normal conductors these localized states are wave-packets (pseudo-electrons); and in a superconductor they are localized stationary orbitals which move by means of quantum fluctuations. There are no "free electrons" within any material unless an electron enters the material with an energy larger than its rest mass energy. The "electron"-waves which "glue" the atoms, and form the charge-carriers by superposition, each has less energy than the rest-mass energy of an electron and can thus not be "free electrons".
It would be worthwhile looking at that McElroy paper to see his measurements, since your model must explain what he measures.
I promise that I will do that as soon as I have the time which unfortunately for the next few weeks is going to be extremely limited.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

happyjack27 wrote:i'll continue in the wave-particle duality thread as suggested.
Hi happyjack, As you can see from my response to Grurgle-The-Gray, my time is very limited at present. As soon as I have a respite, I will look for the new thread and see whether I can contribute something. :)

I also have a problem when submitting to the Talk-Polywell forums. I sometimes have to cliok the submit button up to 30 times before my submission is accepted :(

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Thanks man. Actually when we get on to my model of SC the question as to whether N bosons is actually N separate entities becomes very relevant.
Just a last note on this until a later time: If you talk about a so-called Bose-Einstein-Condensate formed from N bosons, then I can assure you that it is a single holistic wave. The original "bosons" do not exist as separate entities in such a wave: If they did we would not have had laser beams, and I would not have discovered superconduction at room temperature 10 years ago. 8)

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

There is no light caused by the AC effect. That is just saying that with the frequency Standard set by caesium and the perfect voltage to frequency conversion of the AC effect one can define a volt Standard.
Intriguingly you see the bose mass as a single unit, with which I fully agree. A conduction electrowhatever can then swap into one side of the large bose mass and swap out the other side with no acceleration of charge, which is how I see SC. Obviously the properties of the underlying boson need discussion.
I gather that you're claiming room-temperature SC from getting a signal from doped diamond to a gold electrode. Josephson coupling would require that the signal you got was AC at a voltage dependent frequency.
What were the separation distances involved? And what was the voltage / signal response?

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:There is no light caused by the AC effect. That is just saying that with the frequency Standard set by caesium and the perfect voltage to frequency conversion of the AC effect one can define a volt Standard.
I will have to read up on this when I have time or else I will just spout hot air.
I gather that you're claiming room-temperature SC from getting a signal from doped diamond to a gold electrode.
Not a signal but a single wave of millions of entangled electrons. One can see it with a microscope as a black rod that forms between the diamond's surface and the anode.
What were the separation distances involved?
The largest distance (or length of rod) that we could muster was 150 micrometer.

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

Er Wow!!
So you smacked the surface of diamond very hard with O ions to get interstitial atoms. Then had a small (How small?) gold ball brought near (in nms?) the surface, presumably with a voltage (how much?).
You were then able to pull back the ball maintaining electrical contact to a max of 150 microns, leaving something visible in a microscope(what wavelength, visible ~ 500nm?)?

If the current was AC for an applied DC voltage then there can be no negotiation, you've got Josephson coupling and hence room-temp SC.
However considering the scale that you're talking it seems more likely that you were unravelling the diamond structure into a nanotube of some sort, probably multi-multi-walled if it was a single tube you were seeing with visible light.
Nanotubes are known for ballistic transport of electrons, which I'm convinced should be seen as voltage induced SC, and yes ballistic transport is known at room-temperature.
A scale of .1 mm is very large for a Josephson Coupling, but the AC current would clinch it?

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Er Wow!!
So you smacked the surface of diamond very hard with O ions to get interstitial atoms.
No I very gently implanted oxygen ions and annealed to form donors below the surface.
Then had a small (How small?) gold ball
0.5 mm diameter
brought near (in nms?)
micrometer scale
the surface, presumably with a voltage (how much?).
The voltage at which a current started to flow is determined by the work-function of the anode and the distance of the anode from the surface. Typically at a distance of 10 microns, the voltage required for a gold anode is about 800 V.
You were then able to pull back the ball maintaining electrical contact to a max of 150 microns, leaving something visible in a microscope(what wavelength, visible ~ 500nm?)?
A rod forms between the diamond and the anode as soon as an equilibrium current flows. You do not have to pull it out for it to form. You can afterwards pull it out. If you do so without adjusting the voltage, the rod breaks and the current stops flowing. If you adjust the voltage carefully upwards while pulling you can go to larger distances. The largest distance we could achieve was 150 microns. This distance is also affected by the density of donors below the surface.
If the current was AC for an applied DC voltage then there can be no negotiation, you've got Josephson coupling and hence room-temp SC.
This has nothing to do with Josephson "coupling" whatsoever. Both the diamond and the anode were not in a superconducting state.
However considering the scale that you're talking it seems more likely that you were unravelling the diamond structure into a nanotube of some sort, probably multi-multi-walled if it was a single tube you were seeing with visible light.
This is nothing personally against you, but I am getting sick and tired of being accused of being an incompetent experimental physicist who would not notice if nano tubes are forming within an ultra-clean low pressure vacuum. Please check my citation index and think before making assumptions that I am an idiot who would not check all possibilities.

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

I apologize, a nanotube would have left obvious pitting of the surface.
Ok, the Josephson AC effect is a candidate. The frequency should be 2*e*V/h, which will give an equivalent wavelength of c*h/(2*e*V) .
For the 800V you quote this gives 7.7nm which is obviously a lot shorter than what you saw.
I think my vocabulary of known SC effects is pretty good and this falls well outside of known effects, but it falls well outside of anything else I've heard of too. Since SC isn't understood it could be that it belongs there, but the only similarity with any known SC effect is the long-range coupling, which is orders of magnitude longer than the greatest Josephson known.
Were you allowed to publish what you saw? Or did they object to your interpretation and so banned the lab report?
It could be that they needed the lab report itself squashed since the result seems to stick two fingers up at a lot of academic dogma. :D

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

And that, my grey friend, is the root of Johan's current life.
Yes, he did find something that dogma won't eat. In fact the dogma turned on him and bit his hand.

johanfprins
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:40 pm
Location: Johannesbutg
Contact:

Post by johanfprins »

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote: Were you allowed to publish what you saw? Or did they object to your interpretation and so banned the lab report? :D
I was blocked by all journals for two years until a friend of mine who organized a conference on diamond and invited me to give a talk entitled "Ion implantation of diamond for electronic applications" sent out my papers on SC to MANY referees who all advised him NOT to publish BUT without giving any scientifically acceptable reasons why they should not be published.

He then bravely went a ahead and published it as part of the proceedings; and was soon afterwards called by Marshall Stoneham FRS, admonishing him for publishing these manuscripts "which he knows must be wrong" . Stoneham was offered a manuscript in which he canargue why I must be wrong. That was in 2003, and he has not yet done so. But since then I have become a pariah and I suspect that my friend who allowed publication was seriously admonished not to help me in anyway again.

The two papers are in Semiconductor Science and Technology vol; 18, No. 3 March 2003.

This is what is happening in physics today. Even Galileo had a more civilized response.

I can add that in 2007, I tried to raise my understanding of superconduction again at a Royal Society meeting in London. Stoneham who did not attend the meeting was called in as chairman to shut me up!

Grurgle-the-Grey
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:46 am

Post by Grurgle-the-Grey »

It seems clear that there are two separate elements to this fiasco. One is the reporting of a truly extraordinary phenomena, the other is the interpretation of the phenomena.
It is a symptom of the malaise in Academia that they should seek to suppress your results. Even if they considered them suspect then publication and refutation should have been the route taken.
Your interpretation of your results as SC is a lot more difficult to call. There is very little intersection between your results and known SC phenomena, but there is no connection with any other solid state phenomena.
Suppression of inconvenient results is unforgivable and very symptomatic of the lack of progress in modern Physics.
Last edited by Grurgle-the-Grey on Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply