Room-temperature superconductivity?

[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.

[johanfprins]

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.

Thanks, I will forward your advice to my friend who has contacts in the JPL. I am sick of sending e-mails and then being ignored. The guys who tramelled the tests at JPL were superconductor "experts" from NASA. They were so stupid that it is frightening!! Why should I thus again ask for further insults from such an incompetent organisation?

[GIThruster]

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.

Thanks, I will forward your advice to my friend who has contacts in the JPL. I am sick of sending e-mails and then being ignored. The guys who tramelled the tests at JPL were superconductor "experts" from NASA. They were so stupid that it is frightening!! Why should I thus again ask for further insults from such an incompetent organisation?

If you have contacts inside JPL who would be willing to write Braun, it's always best to write from inside NASA. Is this person willing to endorse your work personally to the effect he/she believes it is worth a study? If not, then again I urge, anyone can write Braun:

bobby.braun@nasa.gov

and again I would emphasize that the relevant validation study can be done extremely cheaply by anyone with access to the equipment necessary, and if it is not available, it can be rented. You don't need a particularly large grant even if NASA doesn't have the equipment. Since NASA does make these grants even outside the country, you'll want to know what it costs to rent the necessary equipment to fabricate very large substrates. If you can't rent the equipment in South Africa, then you'll need to find someone willing to do the validation here. I know several extremely accomplished PhD EE's who can help in that regard if necessary, but they don't work for free, so you need a grant.

IMHO, it is not worthwhile to make all manner of claims to understand superconductors better than anyone else--even given this is true. Engineers are the most practical sorts of people. They almost all think in terms of "show me" so theory is of little interest to them. NASA is not academia, where people get paid to ponder. So the emphasis needs to be on the "show me."

Further, I would contact these people and see if they're interested to do a validation study: http://www.diamond-materials.com/deposition_en.htm given you can gain NASA funding. Who knows, even if you don't get a grant, they might be willing to do the study anyway. Think of what they'd have to gain!

[rcain]

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.

listen to yourself man. you are behaving like an utter cock. you are the one who started slinging personal insults about, having nothing to do with the substance of debate or enquiry (which we hadnt even started on yet); you call people 'bigot', 'fool' 'stupid' 'toilet cleaner' and the rest. your words NOT mine or anyone elses. i was merely pointing out (as have MANY others here) what an atrocious job you are doing in trying to present yourself or your case. (whether or not you actually have a case to make). it is you who are proving yourself the only true bigot here in claiming that anyone who dares disagree with your own cock-eyed theories, or objects to your abrasive, arogant and self-aggrandizing manner is a bigot; or now it seems some sort of facist terrorist.

you are truly beyond help. your 'career' in physics (if that's what you call it) is not only at an end, but has obviously been a complete waste of time. RIP. out.

[johanfprins]

If you have contacts inside JPL who would be willing to write Braun, it's always best to write from inside NASA. Is this person willing to endorse your work personally to the effect he/she believes it is worth a study?

He is now retired but had a very high position on JPL. Yes he saw what I did and tried his best to get JPL to repeat a very simple experiment. It was at first enthusiastically received and then scuppered by the two "experts". He himself was shocked by this. I will contact him first before approaching Bobby Braun.

IMHO, it is not worthwhile to make all manner of claims to understand superconductors better than anyone else--even given this is true. Engineers are the most practical sorts of people.

I agree but it is difficult if it has NEVER been proved before by experiment that a current can flow without an electric-field, and then when my experiment proves for the first time EVER that it can happen, I am accused of NOT having demonstrated superconduction.

They almost all think in terms of "show me" so theory is of little interest to them.

So why do they not ask the people who claim superconducttion for other materials to "show them" that the electric-field is zero?

Further, I would contact these people and see if they're interested to do a validation study: http://www.diamond-materials.com/deposition_en.htm given you can gain NASA funding. Who knows, even if you don't get a grant, they might be willing to do the study anyway. Think of what they'd have to gain!

Is this the group under Jim Butler? No chance, Jim's future is far too entwined with the European and Israeli diamond cvommunity. Furthermore, he and Bradley Pate most probably have already repeated my results and it is kept under wraps by the American Military. You must know that Jim Butler has been for years a snoop for NASA. Sorry Jim: But sometimes the truth has to come out!

[johanfprins]

listen to yourself man. you are behaving like an utter cock.

I am not ashamed to have said this to you since you have proved that you are a bigot who does not verify facts before spouting off. So please leave my alone: You are contaminating any discussion. I have explained to you what the mistakes are in the traditional theories and why the charge-carriers are singly-charged: But you do not respond since this requires from you to be logical instead of smearing me with our inuendoes and false accusations. SO PLEASE FO.

[GIThruster]

So why do they not ask the people who claim superconducttion for other materials to "show them" that the electric-field is zero?

You would know better than I do, but it would appear to me that the reason is that this is not normally the test used to determine if something is superconducting. It doesn't matter if your test is a good test or not. You need to use widely accepted tests. You need a four point test on a large substrate, IMHO; and this is not difficult to do. It's just expensive to build a large substrate.

Is this the group under Jim Butler? No chance, Jim's future is far too entwined with the European and Israeli diamond community.

So what? Is your process able to take one of these diamond windows:

http://www.diamond-materials.com/prod_disks_en.htm

and turn it into a superconductor? If it is, then EVERYONE WINS. You don't need to tell anyone how you do it. You just need to get a substrate large enough that when you do it, it can be tested. If you have what you say you have, then it is in DM's vested interest to assist you. If you have what you say you have, the market for their product will explode overnight. If you want your work validated, go to those people able to assist you. DM can assist you.

BTW, where is Butler et al.? These people are in Germany:

Contact persons:
Dr. Christoph Wild
Dr. Eckhard Worner
Internet: www.diamond-materials.com
E-mail: contact@diamond-materials.de
Phone: +49 761 600 6554
Fax: +49 761 600 6553
Address:

Diamond Materials GmbH
Tullastrasse 72
79108 Freiburg
Germany

[johanfprins]

You would know better than I do, but it would appear to me that the reason is that this is not normally the test used to determine if something is superconducting.

The tests "normally" used for superconduction do not prove superconduction at all. What you need to demonstrate is that a current flows without ANY electric field driving the charge carriers. This has NEVER been proved by anyone before except by me for the phase I extracted from diamond.

It doesn't matter if your test is a good test or not. You need to use widely accepted tests.

NOT one of them proves superconduction!! So why should I use them; and if I have to which one tell me which one and what does the test actually proves?

You need a four point test on a large substrate, IMHO; and this is not difficult to do.

I have done thsi but it does NOT prove superconduction since the inability to measure a voltage DOES NOT prove the absence of an electric field! My proof is direct and definite.

So what? Is your process able to take one of these diamond windows:

http://www.diamond-materials.com/prod_disks_en.htm

and turn it into a superconductor?

YES IT IS

If it is, then EVERYONE WINS. You don't need to tell anyone how you do it. You just need to get a substrate large enough that when you do it, it can be tested. If you have what you say you have, then it is in DM's vested interest to assist you. If you have what you say you have, the market for their product will explode overnight. If you want your work validated, go to those people able to assist you. DM can assist you.

I have it but they will NOT help me since they already know for years that I have it but will not cross the superconductor scientists. Or they have it and do not want to disclose it at this stage. In 2007 I even gave Jim Butler the conditions in London; and if there is one person in the USA who can reproduce it with ease it is his assistant Bradley Pate, who I know studied my original publications in detail. You see I know more what is happening

BTW, where is Butler et al.? These people are in Germany
Contact persons:
Dr. Christoph Wild

There are many groups in the world who can do this. I also know Christopher Wild personally. But they all believe the superconductor experts; or else they have something else up their sleeves.
Even though in the past I have been internationally renowned in the field of diamond physics I suddenly became pariah when I claimed in 2001 superconduction at room temperature at a diamond conference in Budapest.
But thank you for your advice: I can assure you that I will follow up all promising leads but am sick and tired of insults.

[GIThruster]

Johan, I'm not a scientist; I'm a philosopher trained in philosophy of technology, philosophy of science and epistemology. I understand why, if you have what you say you have, you also have the troubles you've experienced. This is why I am saying again what I have said several times before:

It does not matter that you think your test is better than what is the industry standard. You may be correct, but it does not matter.

If indeed you can purchase, either with private funds or grant money, a very large diamond substrate, like these above at 140mm dia., then treat it relatively inexpensively and send it to someone like NASA to test for superconductivity--you should do this. You should do it with all haste.

Again, theory means nothing. Engineers want to see the results. If you hand them a very large substrate that is easy to give all manner of tests, and they determine it is indeed superconducting at room temperature, your hassles are solved.

It's just that simple.

BTW, I did a quick scan of the web on "superconduction tests" and everything I found was citing the four point test. You therefore have to use a four point test as this is the industry standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-terminal_sensing

So let me ask a second question, what sort of resources would you need to so treat this large a substrate? How much money is involved in creating a test article that can be sent from lab to lab and tested independently for superconductivity?

[zDarby]

I have just spent the past four days reading this thread, from page 1 to this page, much to the consternation of my girlfriend.

So, Johan, I have a couple of questions. If they've already been answered, I apologize but I didn't get it. Please repeat and try to dumb it down.

My trouble is with magnetic fields. It seems to me that an electron --be it point particle or wave-- which tunnels from one side of the substrate to the other, even if it's one small jump at a time, is not, in the every-day sense of the term, moving. IE, instead of going from here to there and 'being' in every place between, it broadens its perspective of "here" and "there" so that it spans both, then decides to be "there" rather than "here"... Now I know that's not what "actually" happens, but it's a good description of how I envision it.

I was under the impression that a magnetic field is a special relativistic effect of a moving electric charge. IE, if the charge is moving away from your reference frame, it's apparent electric charge is less (from red-shifting of the carrier photons); and, conversely, it's apparent charge is more when moving away (carrier photons are blue-shifted). (By the way, I'm getting this from Feynman's lectures on physics.)

So, if the electrons in a superconductor are tunneling, and therefor not traveling from here to there, and therefor are not moving relativistically, why do they interact with/create magnetic fields? What am I misunderstanding?

How did your diamond superconductors react in a magnetic field?

As a separate inquiry, when I buy your book(s) would it be possible to get or purchase a digital copy? I am one of those rare and odd individuals who prefer sitting before a computer screen than a piece of paper.

[johanfprins]

So, Johan, I have a couple of questions.

I want to compliment you on your questions; they go to heart of the misunderstanding in physics which was caused by people like Bohr, Heisenberg, Born and Dirac.

My trouble is with magnetic fields. It seems to me that an electron --be it point particle or wave-- which tunnels from one side of the substrate to the other, even if it's one small jump at a time, is not, in the every-day sense of the term, moving.

You are correct when using the term "every-day" sense. It is however moving by borrowing energy over the fourth dimension as allowed by Heisenberg's "uncertainty" relationship for energy and time. The latter is of course NOT an "uncertainty" relationship but a quantum fluctuation which allows the electron to borrow the required energy (delta)E for an allowed time interval (delta) to SCALE an energy barrier. There is no tunnelling THROUGH the barrier.

instead of going from here to there and 'being' in every place between, it broadens its perspective of "here" and "there" so that it spans both, then decides to be "there" rather than "here"... Now I know that's not what "actually" happens, but it's a good description of how I envision it.

Such teleportation is possible, for example, it happens through the superconducting phase I discovered 10 years ago; but this is not what happens during "tunnelling" or current flow through traditional superconductors. The electron-wave that "tunnels" does not change its shape or size at all since it jumps over the barrier (NOT MOVE THROUGH IT) within a time-interval (delta)t during which a quantum fluctuation is allowed.

I was under the impression that a magnetic field is a special relativistic effect of a moving electric charge. IE, if the charge is moving away from your reference frame, it's apparent electric charge is less (from red-shifting of the carrier photons); and, conversely, it's apparent charge is more when moving away (carrier photons are blue-shifted). (By the way, I'm getting this from Feynman's lectures on physics.)

Yes this is what they teach you in elementary text books. It is however wrong. There are a lot of things in Feynman's lectures which I have discovered to be wrong. What a pity: I like Feynman a lot!
From Coulomb's law it is easy to see that there IS NO electric-field around a solitary charge which can relativistically transform into a magnetic field. An electric field is ONLY generated BETWEEN charges. If you calculate an electric-field around a solitary charge you get infinities. The "expert" theoretical physicists then have to "renormalize" these infinities since they are to dumb to realize that what they calculated in the first instance does not exist.
It is for the same reason why a Bohr atom cannot have a magnetic moment. A magnetic moment is only generated when opposite charge carriers move relative to each other to in this manner generate a current; for example when "electrons" move relative to the positive ions within a metal ring.

So, if the electrons in a superconductor are tunneling, and therefor not traveling from here to there, and therefor are not moving relativistically, why do they interact with/create magnetic fields? What am I misunderstanding?

Great question! Although they borrow the kinetic energy to move from one anchor point to the next, the anchor points are positively charged and therefore the charge-carriers are moving relative to them. For this reason a magnetic-field is generated and must be generated.

How did your diamond superconductors react in a magnetic field?

Since the critical temperature is too high to measure before the phase breaks up (>500 Celsius) the phase is not very much affected by at room temperature by an external magnetic field. In fact I cannot generate a high enough magnetic field to break it up.

As a separate inquiry, when I buy your book(s) would it be possible to get or purchase a digital copy? I am one of those rare and odd individuals who prefer sitting before a computer screen than a piece of paper.

I have a company with shareholders (family and friends) who invested already five years ago and have stood by me through all the insults: They are against allowing digital copies at this stage. Sorry!

[zDarby]

Thanks for the reply.

darn! As already mentioned, I prefer the digital media. But I understand and respect your reasons for not supplying them. (sigh)

Hehe! I like Feynman too. But he was just as human as you or I: Fallible. Still, he was exceptionally good at describing his vision of the universe's inner workings. It was the first time, for example, I felt I had a mechanism for a magnetic field.

Not just a law: When you move an electric field, you get a magnetic field.

But a theory: Charges communicate their properties via photons; two charges moving compared to each other receive increased or reduced signal depending on relative movement; the shape of the relative change in signal (the magnetic field) is a direct result of the time delay from the speed of light; and magnetic moment comes from simultaneously interacting with time separated moments of the apparent charge... I like that.

Do you have a proposed theory to replace it? Or does the throwing out of renormalization require us to give up, for the moment, knowing why (theory) and be content with knowing how (law) magnetic fields are formed?

Hrm... Did I read that right? Do you mean to say superconductivity in chilled mercury is a different mechanism than superconductivity in your diamond substrate?

I meant to ask: Did you ever expose your superconductor to a magnetic field and were you able to measure any difference in the way it acted when exposed?

When you say, "the anchor point is positive," what do you mean by "anchor point"?

Ok... So, if the apparent moving charges (the anchor points) are positive, that should mean the magnetic field is left-hand-rule. Were you able to measure the magnetic field's polarity compared to the direction of current?

[TallDave]

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.

Possibly. Things do sometimes go in the "Can't Explain, So Ignore" bin for reasons good, bad, or indifferent.

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 was thinking more along the lines of just being able to repeat your experimental results. Independent replication is everything in science. If enough people replicate your results, at some point the experts will be forced to confront this phenomenon. Some of these guys who are building their own fusors might be interested (and a few have fairly significant resources) if the cost isn't too prohibitive.

It's a shame that we apparently cannot build a Polywell with 500 C superconducting diamond magnets using this technology. I guess we can hope that (if you're right) either future mfg processes are developed to allow this or other materials can be found/developed with appropriate ductility/etc for such applications, using the same principle.

[johanfprins]

Thanks for the reply.

Hehe! I like Feynman too. But he was just as human as you or I: Fallible. Still, he was exceptionally good at describing his vision of the universe's inner workings. It was the first time, for example, I felt I had a mechanism for a magnetic field.

I believe that Feynman also knew that the Copenhagen interpretation is claptrap, but he did not pursue that route because at that time it was a dead-end towards the Nobel Prize. Read his lectures carefully and you will see what I mean. If it were not for his lectures and the hints he gave I would have been totally lost when it comes to physics.

Not just a law: When you move an electric field, you get a magnetic field.

Correct, but then you must move a REAL electric-field. There is NO electric-field around a solitary charge and therefore when a solitary charge passes you by with a constant velocity there is also no magnetic field.

But a theory: Charges communicate their properties via photons

Please define "photon" before you make such an assertion.

two charges moving compared to each other receive increased or reduced signal depending on relative movement; the shape of the relative change in signal (the magnetic field) is a direct result of the time delay from the speed of light; and magnetic moment comes from simultaneously interacting with time separated moments of the apparent charge... I like that.

You do not need "photons" for that: It is altready explained perfectly by Maxwell's equations which also tells you that an electric field can ONLY be present between charges. What has that got to do with "photons"?.

Do you have a proposed theory to replace it?

Maxwell's equations already explain it: Why do you want to invoke "photons"

Or does the throwing out of renormalization require us to give up, for the moment, knowing why (theory) and be content with knowing how (law) magnetic fields are formed?

Renormalisation
has been brought in since it is assumed that an electric energy-field exists around a solitary electron. According to Coulomb's law there cannot be such a fied, SINCE Coulomb's law is only valid for a minimum of TWO charges. If you disagree with this statement please prove to me experimentally that there is an actual electric-field around a solitary charge! The total electric-energy of an electron IS its mass: There is no extra electric field energy around a solitary electron or around ANY solitary charge for that matter.

Hrm... Did I read that right? Do you mean to say superconductivity in chilled mercury is a different mechanism than superconductivity in your diamond substrate?

It is different from the superconducting phase which I can extract from a diamond substrate by an anode in the sense that the latter phase is a single holistic wave. It is not different from the diamond substrtates I can now manufacture where the phase consists of separate charge-carriers. However, both phases conduct by means of quantum fluctuations; and are thus in this sense the same.

I meant to ask: Did you ever expose your superconductor to a magnetic field and were you able to measure any difference in the way it acted when exposed?

Since the critical temperature of my phases is above 500 celsius, there is not a strong enough magnetic field to make any difference.

When you say, "the anchor point is positive," what do you mean by "anchor point"?

A superconductor is an insulator. When a metal goes through a metal-insulator transition to become superconducting, the delocaliised electron waves form localised "orbitals" each of which is anchored by a positive charge: Or else they will not be localised.

Ok... So, if the apparent moving charges (the anchor points) are positive,

The positive charges are only apparently moving when you move with the jumping electron-orbitals.

that should mean the magnetic field is left-hand-rule. Were you able to measure the magnetic field's polarity compared to the direction of current?

That has been done MANY times for superconducting metal rings and superconducting wires and proved correct. Why should I repeat it? I only now saw that you used 'LEFT-HAND" rule. Where was this ever observed for a magnetic field? Please enlighten me on this!!

[johanfprins]

I was thinking more along the lines of just being able to repeat your experimental results. Independent replication is everything in science.

This assumes that all laboratories are equally competent: Unfortunately I have learned the HARD way that laborotaries do not want to reproduce results which invalidate what they WANT TO believe. I cannot force people to reproduce my results especially when they are initially willing to do so, as they were willing at the JPL, but was then stopped by NASA "experts". Neither can I force a person like prof Terry Doyle, who did reproduce my results, to agree to superconduction if this logical and forthright conclusion invalidates most of his papers that he has written during his career.

It's a shame that we apparently cannot build a Polywell with 500 C superconducting diamond magnets using this technology.

I think we can generate fusion easily, and has been itching to tell you: but if I am so villified for claiming superconduction at room termperature, how much more villification will I have to endure when claiming fusion using a lower pressure plasma than the one PolyWell is trying to use? I will write up this idea and lock it away for my grandchildren.