Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

Ok... So, if the apparent moving charges (the anchor points) are positive, that should mean the magnetic field is left-hand-rule.

I just saw your "LEFT-HAND" rule. How do you come to this? The current is ALWAYS "RIGHT-HAND" rule. Since when you take the current as negative or positive into the opposite direction you get the SAME polarity as determined by the "RIGHT-HAND" rule. "LEFT-HAND" rule? Maybe you should reread Feynman's lectures

[GIThruster]

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".

Nevertheless, there is no other way to proceed. If you give up, these spectral detractors win.

Far better than blaming those who are not here to defend themselves is simply to set off once again on the road to replication. Even if you've been short-changed in the past, even if you will be so again in the future, there is no other way to proceed.

[zDarby]

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

I meant to say "electric charge" not "electric field".

[...]when a solitary charge passes you by with a constant velocity there is also no magnetic field.

This is counter to what I thought I knew about experimental evidence. Can you site an experiment that shows this is the case? ... It is my understanding a solitary moving charge *does* exhibit a magnetic field. I could easily be wrong, but that's what I understood to be true. I shall try to find an example in experiment.

...

Maxwells equations are great! They perfectly describe what happens when two electric charges are moving compared to eachother. But they describe a law, not a theory. Which is to say, they describe what happens, not why.

When earlier I spoke of photons, I was quoting current physics dogma. As flawed as it is, current dogma does portray a why --a theory-- for the magnetic field. This theory was what I was describing. I think we all agree this theory is deeply flawed, but it is a theory and not just law.

What I'm asking is if you have a preferred theory --again, not a 'what' but a 'why'; or, if you prefer: not a description but an explanation-- for magnetic fields?

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 substrates 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.

Ok. just to make sure I understood you correctly:
Superconductivity in chilled mercury is the effect of a singular wave.
But superconductivity in your diamond substrate is of many different waves tunneling in concert, if not in unison.
Is that what you're saying?

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

Are you saying that you did expose it to a magnetic field and nothing interesting happened? Or that you already knew nothing would happen and you didn't expose it to a magnetic field?

That has been done MANY times for superconducting metal rings and superconducting wires and proved correct. Why should I repeat it?

Well, first to be certain that what you expect to happen is, in fact, what happens. After all, when things don't do what you expect them to, that's when exciting new insights take place!

But, just as importantly, comparing the magnetic field strength and polarity to the flow of current will tell you what the relationship is between the charge carriers and the current. And you'll have measured the data experimentally, not calculated it theoretically. I got the impression you had already done this. Was I wrong?
~~~~~
Edit:

I just saw your "LEFT-HAND" rule. How do you come to this? The current is ALWAYS "RIGHT-HAND" rule. Since when you take the current as negative or positive into the opposite direction you get the SAME polarity as determined by the "RIGHT-HAND" rule. "LEFT-HAND" rule? Maybe you should reread Feynman's lectures

Yeah. I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I wrote that. I'll chock it up to it being late, or something.
I go back to Feynman over and over again. I forget, then get confused and befuddled until I go back to his lectures and re-discover.

[zDarby]

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

I would love to replicate this experiment in my garage. I need to understand it better, of course. But I'd love to try.

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

Why couldn't we? I mean, if this class of superconductor makes magnetic fields --and Johan says they do-- than we certainly can!
...With enough money to buy or build and then modify the diamond coils, of course!

[GIThruster]

I think it still remains to be seen whether this technique Johan says he has can be applied to more than surface materials. That's why I pointed out the group from Germany; their "windows' are more than ultra-thin substrates. They have both. Now if Johan's technique works, and if it can be applied to bulk materials and not just the surface, you can indeed grow very large diamond rings just for your Poly and put fantastic currents through it at high temp, A Poly is just one fabulous application.

[krenshala]

I think it still remains to be seen whether this technique Johan says he has can be applied to more than surface materials. That's why I pointed out the group from Germany; their "windows' are more than ultra-thin substrates. They have both. Now if Johan's technique works, and if it can be applied to bulk materials and not just the surface, you can indeed grow very large diamond rings just for your Poly and put fantastic currents through it at high temp, A Poly is just one fabulous application.

Even if it was only a surface effect, it can still be used for the magrid on a polywell. Layers!

[GIThruster]

I think it still remains to be seen whether this technique Johan says he has can be applied to more than surface materials. That's why I pointed out the group from Germany; their "windows' are more than ultra-thin substrates. They have both. Now if Johan's technique works, and if it can be applied to bulk materials and not just the surface, you can indeed grow very large diamond rings just for your Poly and put fantastic currents through it at high temp, A Poly is just one fabulous application.

Even if it was only a surface effect, it can still be used for the magrid on a polywell. Layers!

Yes, but more difficult since diamond is not flexible. You'd have to cut your concentric rings to shape and size and fit them together, and the mag forces they would experience would make some issues--but either way yes, a room temp superconductor would be a boon for many different projects and industries.

[krenshala]

I think it still remains to be seen whether this technique Johan says he has can be applied to more than surface materials. That's why I pointed out the group from Germany; their "windows' are more than ultra-thin substrates. They have both. Now if Johan's technique works, and if it can be applied to bulk materials and not just the surface, you can indeed grow very large diamond rings just for your Poly and put fantastic currents through it at high temp, A Poly is just one fabulous application.

Even if it was only a surface effect, it can still be used for the magrid on a polywell. Layers!

Yes, but more difficult since diamond is not flexible. You'd have to cut your concentric rings to shape and size and fit them together, and the mag forces they would experience would make some issues--but either way yes, a room temp superconductor would be a boon for many different projects and industries.

I was thinking something along the lines of vapor deposition forming, or something like that. I'll admit, I don't know the specifics (or most of the details) on vapor deposition, but it seems to me like it could be a feasible method of forming the structure without having to bend it.

The forces on the structure would still be an issue, of course.

[GIThruster]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101652.htm

[GIThruster]

Even if it was only a surface effect, it can still be used for the magrid on a polywell. Layers!

Yes, but more difficult since diamond is not flexible. You'd have to cut your concentric rings to shape and size and fit them together, and the mag forces they would experience would make some issues--but either way yes, a room temp superconductor would be a boon for many different projects and industries.

I was thinking something along the lines of vapor deposition forming, or something like that. I'll admit, I don't know the specifics (or most of the details) on vapor deposition, but it seems to me like it could be a feasible method of forming the structure without having to bend it.

The forces on the structure would still be an issue, of course.

Yes, certainly that's the process to use. I don't know another that is commercially viable.

[zDarby]

It seems some recent work with supercondutors is, to some extent, paralleling Johan's assertions.

Iron-Arsenic Superconductors In Class Of Their Own
Disappearing Superconductivity Reappears -- In 2-D
The New 'Look' Of Superconductivity
New Mechanism For Superconductivity?
Two-Dimensional High-Temperature Superconductor Discovered
Controlling Structure on the Nanoscale Could Lead to Better Superconductors
Physicists Discover Odd Fluctuating Magnetic Waves

Quasicrystals: Somewhere Between Order And Disorder:
"Schrödinger's equation, which debuted in 1925, describes how electrons behave in any material. But for decades, mathematicians have been able to use just one of the equation's terms -- the Schrödinger operator -- to find out whether a material will be a conductor or an insulator. In the past five years, mathematicians have proven that that method won't work for quasicrystals." ... "[W]e proved that electrons always behave this way in the quasicrystal model we studied, not just now or tomorrow but for all time."


(This last one was has little to do with superconductors but was just kinda cool.)

[ladajo]

Johann,
What do you think of this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092602.htm

[TallDave]

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

I would love to replicate this experiment in my garage. I need to understand it better, of course. But I'd love to try.

I think a lot of people would.

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

Why couldn't we? I mean, if this class of superconductor makes magnetic fields --and Johan says they do-- than we certainly can!
...With enough money to buy or build and then modify the diamond coils, of course!

I'm not sure this is doable with a surface effect (maybe someone can elucidate?), and I think they would tend to shatter at multiple Teslas (diamond is brittle). My understanding is you need more ductility. Maybe we can run some numbers and see how plausible my assumption on that was.

The "expert" theoretical physicists then have to "renormalize" these infinities

I never liked this idea either. Renormalization has always seemed like black magic to me; it seems wrong that you can subtract one infinity from another and get a sensible result. But it is apparently empirical.

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

[DeltaV]

I'm not sure this is doable with a surface effect (maybe someone can elucidate?), and I think they would tend to shatter at multiple Teslas (diamond is brittle). My understanding is you need more ductility. Maybe we can run some numbers and see how plausible my assumption on that was.

Diamond Foils

Specifications
•Flexible and strong freestanding diamond membranes
•Various forms of diamond including nano-crystalline and micro-crystalline diamond, depending on synthesis conditions
•Up to 10 µm thick
•Several cm2 in size
•Young’s modulus up to 1050 GPa, depending on diamond material
•Burst pressure up to 600 kPa, depending on ratio of film thickness to lateral dimension and material
•Mountable in frames
•Drapable, during fabrication the foils can be wrapped around three-dimensional components such as pins

Just need continuous roll production. Also, Johan mentioned polymers.

YCBO is brittle too, but still capable of high fields when combined with tougher support material:
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/mediacenter/n ... ust19.html

[TallDave]

Thanks for the link. I'd hoped that was possible, but Johan's comment threw some cold water on that idea. I'm not certain what exactly the properties of his substrates are. Maybe he'll stop by and elaborate on the application limits.